28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Brenord v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. · filed 2001-03-05(c)(3)

Although cognizant of its discretion to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ supplemental claims in this case, the court declines to exercise that discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss related state law claims without prejudice after dismissing federal claims, especially when the state claims present novel issues of state law.

Arakawa v. Sakata · filed 2001-03-06(c)

Dismissal of federal claims provides the district courts with discretion to dismiss without prejudice a plaintiffs related state law claims. See Siveaney, 119 F.3d at 1392; 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because this case presents novel issues of state law (in addition to the novel issues of federal law already addressed) which should first be addressed by the state courts, this court dismisses the state law claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to refile in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over third-party state-law claims when it remands the original action as improperly removed.

Brooklyn Hospital Center v. Diversified Information Technologies, Inc. · filed 2001-03-08(c)

Because the original action must be remanded to state court, I decline-to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider the state law claims alleged in Diversified’s third-party complaint against Grinnell.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all federal claims and the remaining state claim raises a novel question of state law.

Ferguson v. Credit Management Control, Inc. · filed 2001-03-23(c)(1), (c)(3)

Under § 1367(c), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in circumstances where the court has dismissed all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... A court may also decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim and the claim is dismissed without prejudice.

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

C.L.U.B. v. City of Chicago · filed 2001-03-30(c)

As the court is granting summary judgment to the City on Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the court dismisses Count XIII pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the claim duplicates a federal claim, has already produced a final state court judgment, and faces a likely immunity defense.

Games Galore of Ohio, Inc. v. Masminster · filed 2001-07-03

Having reviewed this matter, the Court DECLINES pendent jurisdiction over the common law conversion claim in this case due to the fact that it appears to be repetitive with the § 1983 claim; Plaintiff has already received a substantial and final state court judgment on this claim against the Beckers; and because it is likely that Defendant City of Cincinnati may have an adequate immunity defense against Plaintiffs common law conversion claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that raise novel state-law issues or substantially predominate after federal liability has been resolved.

Fitzpatrick v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. · filed 2001-08-15(c)

To the extent that a federal claim remains against the individual, the state law claims substantially predominate over the damage issue which is the only issue remaining in the federal claim. The court concludes, therefore, that it will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted against Winn-Dixie.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims early in the case, particularly when the remaining claims raise novel state law issues and a related state suit is pending.

Astoria Entertainment, Inc. v. Edwards · filed 2001-08-22(c)

Although the several state law counts were properly asserted pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court must decide whether to retain those causes of action pursuant to its pendent jurisdiction. ... Here, the two federal claims have been dismissed at an early stage of the litigation. Five state law claims remain, and at least two of those claims (Counts I and II) involve novel issues of state law. Moreover, a state lawsuit is pending involving many of the same defendants. Based on these factors, judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity require this Court to dismiss the pendent state law claims as well.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims survive and no reason to decline jurisdiction appears.

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Mayflower Transit, Inc. · filed 2001-08-23(c)

Since we have denied Mayflower’s motion to dismiss the federal claims, and since there is no apparent basis for refusing to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction, we deny Mayflower’s request to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after resolving federal claims when the remaining state claims require interpretation of a state constitution and recent state law.

Kadetsky v. Egg Harbor Township Board of Education · filed 2001-09-10(c)

Because Plaintiffs remaining claims concern interpretations of the New Jersey Constitution and require the application of a recent change in New Jersey state law concerning the pleading requirements for defamation on matters of public concern, ... I believe the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when the federal claims have been dismissed and novel, complex state law issues predominate.

Chance v. Avenue A, Inc. · filed 2001-09-14(c)

District courts are granted broad discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This Court finds that once the three federal claims are dismissed, novel and complex issues of state law predominate. Further, Plaintiffs’ only claim of original federal jurisdiction was based on its three federal causes of action, all of which have been dismissed. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state claims, and they are dismissed as well.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over third-party state-law claims that raise novel questions and substantially predominate over the original action.

McAllister Towing & Transportation Co. v. Thorn's Diesel Service, Inc. · filed 2001-09-25(c)

Under these alternative theories, therefore, Thorn’s Diesel’s claims against NREC and Lester appear to pose novel questions under Louisiana law. ... The issues raised by the Third Party Complaint involve more complicated issues in terms of the proof, scope, and/or remedy. ... Accordingly, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Orr v. R T Management Co. · filed 2001-09-25

To the extent Orr sought to assert state law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital Corp. v. Stevens Transport, Inc. · filed 2001-10-05(c)

If St. Luke’s declines to assert an ERISA claim, then the Court will remand the case to state court, since the Court declines to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, especially when the state claims raise unresolved state law issues and predominate.

Grauberger v. St. Francis Hospital · filed 2001-11-06(c)

First, plaintiffs RICO claim provided the only basis for federal jurisdiction over the state law claims set forth in the complaint. Now that the RICO claim must be dismissed, it is appropriate to decline jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Second, the state law claims raise important issues of state law that have yet to be definitively addressed by a state appellate court, and are more appropriately resolved by the state courts. Third, the seven state law claims predominate over the RICO claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when its basis for original jurisdiction has ended.

First Financial Insurance v. Jetco Contracting Corp. · filed 2001-11-20(c)(3)

As there is no longer a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1382, retention of state law claims under supplemental jurisdiction is left to the Court’s discretion. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ... We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that have not been pled with specificity.

Ringsred v. City of Duluth · filed 2001-11-26(a)

Neither claim has been pled with specificity, and we see no reason to exercise our Supplemental Jurisdiction in order to address what are singularly actions under State law.

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

Lappin v. Laidlaw Transit Inc. · filed 2001-12-18(c)(3)

The Court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim (the Fourth Claim for Relief for Battery against Defendant Brown), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and therefore also DISMISSES that claim, without prejudice to its re-filing in state court.

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

Rowe v. Fort Lauderdale · filed 2002-01-23(c)(3)

In this case, (3) certainly applies and (1) may. The district court thus had the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel or complex state-law issues, and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Mellen v. Bunting · filed 2002-01-24(c)(1)

Furthermore, this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). For these reasons, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state claims. These claims therefore are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Powers v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · filed 2002-02-08(c)(1), (c)(3)

Moreover, pursuant to Section 1367(c)(1), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the state claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” ... The Court concludes that the “novel or complex” standard is met at least with respect to the plaintiffs allegations under paragraph N. ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (3), the remaining portions of this action are remanded to the Circuit Court of Escambia County.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the remaining federal claim and raise complex or novel issues of state law.

Kilbourn v. Candy Ford-Mercury, Inc. · filed 2002-03-11(c)

On the other hand, Kilbourn’s claims under the MPAA and the MCPA are still significant claims which substantially predominate over the federal claim over which the court has jurisdiction. The tail has started to wag the dog. In addition, these significant state law claims raise complex, and perhaps novel, issues of state law regarding the marketing, advertising, and selling of used motor vehicles in Michigan.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for exceptional circumstances supported by compelling reasons; absent such circumstances, the court may retain related state-law claims.

Ploog v. HomeSide Lending, Inc. · filed 2002-03-19(c)(4)

Therefore, because First Chicago has not alleged any “exceptional circumstances” that would, compel this Court to refuse supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against First Chicago, this Court in its discretion will continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a negligence claim when adjudicating it would delay resolution of the remaining claims.

Little v. Tall · filed 2002-03-25(c)(4)

Following Judge Brody's lead, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's negligence claim against ARCH so as to avoid delay in resolving plaintiff's remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that predominate over federal claims and to remand them after the federal claims are dismissed.

Bell Consumers, Inc. v. Lay · filed 2002-03-28(c)

The Court may decline to exercise this supplemental jurisdiction if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for' declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The state law claims clearly predominate over the claims oyer which the district court has original jurisdiction. ... In light of the dismissal of the federal defendants, the remaining issues in this case should be remanded to state court.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits dismissal without prejudice of a supplemental state-law claim when a parallel state action and the parties’ positions warrant declining jurisdiction.

Buzek v. Pawnee County, Nebraska · filed 2002-04-16(c)(4)

That being the case, and in light of the defendants’ objection to this court exercising jurisdiction over the public meetings law claim,' I conclude that the claim should be dismissed sua sponte, without prejudice, under section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when a state-law issue is better answered by state courts.

D'AMICO v. Compass Group USA, Inc. · filed 2002-04-22(c)(3)

While the court would ordinarily proceed to decide the pendent state-law claims (as the case was originally filed in federal court), I will not do so in this instance. ... Whether D'Amico would be considered disabled under state law is a question better answered by the State courts.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice; that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Johnson v. City of Bullhead City · filed 2002-04-23(c)

Nonetheless, we see no basis for finding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize a district court to remand claims over which it has original jurisdiction merely because it dismissed other claims within its original jurisdiction.

Battle v. Seibels Bruce Insurance · filed 2002-04-29(c)(3)

For the reasons we have just explained, we hold the district court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the Remaining Claims pursuant to § 1331. Accordingly, the district court erred when it remanded the Remaining Claims to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) based upon its mistaken belief that it had otherwise dismissed all claims over which it had “original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice in its discretion after dismissing the related federal claims.

Figueroa-Lopez v. Hilerio-Padilla · filed 2002-04-30

The personal liability claims under Puerto Rico law against co-defendants Forestier, Padilla, Sulsona and del Valle will be DISMISSED without prejudice under the discretion this Court has to dismiss supplemental state claims under 28 § U.S.C. 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss a state law claim without prejudice when the claim is not completely preempted and the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.

Funkhouser v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2002-05-15(c)

On the other hand, if the claim were not completely preempted, the court would be free to dismiss without prejudice under the supplemental jurisdiction statute.

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

General Cigar Holdings, Inc. v. Altadis, S.A. · filed 2002-06-12(c)

Instead, the Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and decline to invoke sup...plemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction early in the case.

O'Brien v. Quad Six, Inc. · filed 2002-07-22(c)(3)

The instant motion was defendants’ initial filing in response to the complaint. Because we have dismissed all claims over which we had original jurisdiction so early in this case, we decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when state courts are better suited to resolve state-law immunity issues.

Rankin v. Berkeley County Sheriff's Department · filed 2002-09-19

The determination of whether the parties to this matter are immune from liability under the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act would be better handled by a state court. Therefore, through an analysis of Semple and plaintiffs state law claims in this matter, the Court finds that the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against exercising it.

Shabtai v. Giuliani · filed 2002-10-11

In addition, dismissal of Shabtai’s state-law claims was proper because either the district court lacked jurisdiction over those claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 or judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity suggest that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, if permissible, was not appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim raising a novel or complex issue of state law, but declining may abuse its discretion when that issue is closely intertwined with federal claims.

American Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Smith · filed 2002-10-16(c)(1)

Subsection (c)(1) of Section 1367 provides that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” However, the issue of whether the above Florida statutory sections are violative of the Florida Constitution are, as previously indicated above, so intertwined with the federal claims in Counts One (ADA) and Three (Rehabilitation Act) that to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Count Two would appear to be an abuse of the Court’s discretion.

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

Baldi v. Bourn · filed 2002-10-30(c)(1), (c)(3)

In this case, the federal claims have been dismissed. Baldi’s state claims are novel. The suit was filed less than a year ago, and the state claims are not well-developed. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Baldi’s state law claims. See § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only on an enumerated ground; when none applies, the court should retain jurisdiction over a related state-law claim.

Joseph v. Treglia v. Town of Manlius · filed 2002-12-16(c)

None of the § 1367(c) categories are available in the instant case. Treglia’s state discrimination claim does not raise a novel or complex issue of state law, does not predominate over the federal retaliation claim over which the district court retained jurisdiction, and does not raise other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. The district court therefore should retain jurisdiction over the state discrimination claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the other claims are dismissed.

Schilling v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources · filed 2003-01-09

Because only state law claims remain in this lawsuit among plaintiffs and defendant State of Wisconsin, I will remand this case to state court. Although the State of Wisconsin asserts in its counterclaim that this court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the state law claims, I decline to exercise that jurisdiction.

Section 1367 gives district courts discretion to retain or remand supplemental state law claims.

Adkins, Billy E. v. IL Central RR Co · filed 2003-03-06(c)

We cannot find that the district court was compelled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the case, once Amtrak was before it in one capacity. The normal rule is that district courts have discretion to retain or remand supplemental claims.

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

Porter v. Lincoln City · filed 2003-03-21(c)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Porter’s pendent state law claims for fraud, misrepresentation, libel, slander, and violations of the California Constitution.

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

Mousa v. Lauda Air Luftfahrt, A.G. · filed 2003-03-31(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction of the surviving breach of contract claim in Count III of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when none of its listed grounds has been established, subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Department · filed 2003-04-07(c)

Here, defendants have not established that any of the grounds listed in § 1367(c) are present. Therefore, the court concludes that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims against defendants Skorey and Cherokee Mental Health Institute provided that those claims are not subject to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over unresolved state law issues after it dismisses all federal claims.

Pelletier v. Maine Principals' Ass'n · filed 2003-05-09(c)(1), (3)

I decline to rule on the state constitutional issues, however. ... Those are issues for the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3). The case is remanded to the Superior Court (Cumberland County) with any state constitutional issues remaining.

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

Murphy v. Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Association · filed 2003-05-09(c)

Once the district court granted summary judgment on Florida Keys' contribution claim it had the discretion to dismiss the Ashmans' counterclaim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). There was no abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that no federal claim remains when a federal claim is before the district court on remand.

Lee, Mark A. v. City of Chicago · filed 2003-05-22(c)(3)

We note that since a federal claim will be once again be before it on remand, the district court’s stated reasons for denying supplemental jurisdiction over Lee’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 are no longer valid.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence and fraud claims when it has resolved the federal-law issues.

Parker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · filed 2003-06-13

Furthermore, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law tort claims of negligence and fraud.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state claims that raise novel or complex state law issues after the federal claims are dismissed and the state claims predominate.

Shavitz v. City of High Point · filed 2003-07-09(c)

Finding this request to be based on sound legal reasoning, the Court will therefore remand Plaintiffs state law claims, numbered Claim Three, Claim Five, and Claim Six in the Complaint, to the appropriate state court for further determination, if necessary.

Section 1367(c) supports retaining supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when they raise no novel or complex state-law issue, do not predominate over federal claims, and federal claims remain.

Calabrese v. CSC Holdings, Inc. · filed 2003-08-13(c)

Here, the state-law claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law and do not predominate over the federal claims. Also, this Court has not dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over complex state-law claims after all federal claims have been resolved before trial; retaining jurisdiction can be an abuse of discretion.

Holly D. v. California Institute of Technology · filed 2003-08-15(c)

In light of its unique procedural history, and given the factors enumerated in § 1367(c) and the interests of "economy, convenience, fairness, and comity," Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001, retaining jurisdiction over these policy-laden claims would at this point constitute an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over complex state-law claims when all federal claims have been eliminated before trial.

Holly D. v. California Institute of Technology · filed 2003-08-15(c)

When all federal claims are eliminated before trial, retaining jurisdiction only over complex questions of state law becomes, in some circumstances, especially inappropriate.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Ford v. Kiva · filed 2003-08-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over de Ford’s state law claims against The Kiva.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand supplemental state-law claims when they raise a novel issue of state law or when the court has dismissed the sole federal claim.

Harvey v. Alameda County Medical Center · filed 2003-08-25(c)(1), (c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to remand the Second and Third Causes of Action pursuant to § 1367(c)(1) and, alternatively, § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, or when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law or substantially predominates over the federal claims.

Angstadt Ex Rel. Angstadt v. MIDD-WEST SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2003-09-03(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)

We agree that we may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count IV of plaintiffs’ complaint either because we will dismiss all claims over which we have original jurisdiction, or because the claim raises a complex issue of state law which predominates over plaintiffs’ federal claims. We will therefore dismiss Count IV.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Stewart v. May Department Stores · filed 2003-09-05(a)

The Court may exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In the exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to consider the merits of defendant’s motion on the state-law claims, and instead dismisses these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state and city law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Shah v. Wilco Systems, Inc. · filed 2003-09-26(c)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state and city law claims after all federal claims had been dismissed. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the relevant statute on supplemental jurisdiction in this case, is “permissive rather than mandatory.”

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Medina v. McGrath · filed 2003-11-13(c)

The district court properly exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Medina’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) requires a district court to state its basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Bahrampour v. R.O. Lampert, Superintendent Debbie Holland Teresa Hicks Kathy Stevens · filed 2004-01-13(c)

Mr. Bahrampour’s state law claim is related to his federal claims and forms part of the same case or controversy. Because the district court did not indicate the basis for declining to exercise its jurisdiction over Mr. Bahrampour’s state law claim, we must vacate and remand this matter for a ruling on the merits, or an order consistent with the requirements of § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to withdraw from continuing supplemental jurisdiction over local-law enforcement after the federal issues are resolved.

Jake's Ltd., Inc. v. City of Coates · filed 2004-01-30

Moreover, issuing such a broad decree has now embroiled the district court in the ongoing task of enforcing local zoning ordinances, permitting the City to shift its day-to-day enforcement actions from the state courts to a federal court long after the initial First Amendment issues were resolved. We conclude that the district court should now withdraw from this discretionary assumption of continuing supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

McNealy v. Emerson Electric Co. · filed 2004-02-25(a)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In the exercise of its discretion, the Court dismisses these claims without prejudice.

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

Castro v. Fashion 21, Inc. · filed 2004-03-05(c)(1), (c)(3)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that the district court “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 ... [or] (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In this case both of these conditions were met. ... We conclude that in the circumstances of this case, it was inappropriate for the district court to have retained the supplemental state claims against the Fashion 21 defendants after the federal claims were dismissed. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court dismissing the supplemental claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and remand the case to that court with instructions to dismiss the supplemental claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not call for declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that all federal claims have been dismissed when federal claims remain.

Concepcion v. Zorrilla · filed 2004-03-08(c)(3)

Inasmuch as we have rejected defendants’ plea to dismiss all federal claims, the petition to decline supplemental jurisdiction is also DENIED.

Section 1367 permits a court to withdraw from continuing supplemental jurisdiction over local-law enforcement after the federal issues have been resolved.

JAKE'S, LTD., INC. RICHARD J. JACOBSON, — v. CITY OF COATES, — · filed 2004-03-12(c)

Moreover, issuing such a broad decree has now embroiled the district court in the ongoing task of enforcing local zoning ordinances, permitting the City to shift its day-to-day enforcement actions from the state courts to a federal court long after the initial First Amendment issues were resolved. We conclude that the district court should now withdraw from this discretionary assumption of continuing supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

Ingram v. Harry · filed 2004-03-19(c)(3)

Finally, having found no basis for federal jurisdiction, the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over Ingram’s supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after the federal claims have been resolved.

Chance v. Mahoning County · filed 2004-06-22(c)(3)

The award of summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ state law IIED claims is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions either to exercise its discretion to dismiss the supplemental state law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) or to give notice to the plaintiffs that it is considering granting summary judgment sua sponte and that they must come forward with all of the available evidence in support of their IIED claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim.

Washington v. Buraker · filed 2004-06-23

Furthermore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state court claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act claims because Tennessee gives its circuit courts exclusive original jurisdiction over them.

Cunningham v. Reid · filed 2004-07-13(c)(4)

Alternatively, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only for one of its four stated reasons; declining it without an applicable reason is an abuse of discretion.

Montano, Esteban v. City of Chicago · filed 2004-07-13(c)

Nothing on this record suggests that it was for one of the four reasons recognized in § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) does not warrant dismissal of state law claims based on dismissal of the federal claims when a federal claim is reinstated on appeal.

Monica L. McDowell Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church Will Ackles · filed 2004-07-23(c)

When the district court dismissed Elvig's claims under Title VII, it also dismissed her various state law claims under the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because we hold that Elvig has stated a valid sexual harassment claim under Title VII, the dismissal of her state claims is no longer warranted.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when any one listed ground applies, but does not require it to do so.

Ernst v. Roberts · filed 2004-08-12(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c); the district court has the option of declining supplemental jurisdiction if any one of the provisions apply, but the district court is not bound to decline supplemental jurisdiction merely because one or more provisions apply.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only on a recognized ground, and doing so without an apparent statutory ground can be an abuse of discretion.

ESTEBAN MONTAÑO v. CITY OF CHICAGO · filed 2004-08-30(c)

Nothing on1 this record suggests that it was for one of the four reasons recognized in § 1367(c). ... Though our review of decisions under § 1367(c) is deferential, we conclude that the district court’s September 25 order refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims crossed over the line and amounted to an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise a novel or complex state-law issue after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Bishop v. NU-WAY SERVICE STATIONS, INC. · filed 2004-09-23(c)(1), (c)(3)

Upon consideration, this Court will exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) [8] and (3), and dismiss the claims in Counts II and IV of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Landry v. United Scaffolding, Inc. · filed 2004-09-27

The Court declines to consider the plaintiffs state disability discrimination claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, the claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction and the remaining state law claims raise delicate issues of state law.

Dream Palace v. County Of Maricopa · filed 2004-09-27(c)(1), (c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 affords district courts the discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims if, among other reasons, "the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law," or "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction." Such is the case here: the district court had decided each and every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, and the remaining state law claims, concerning as they do issues of the balance of power between state and local authorities in Arizona, involved delicate issues of state law. While the district court had the discretion to reach and to decide these state law issues, we cannot say that its refusal to do so constituted an abuse of discretion.

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

Granito v. Tiska · filed 2005-01-07(c)(3)

The district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Granito’s remaining claims, which are asserted under state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when they raise no novel or complex state law issue, do not substantially predominate, and declining jurisdiction would duplicate judicial resources.

Bensman v. Citicorp Trust, N.A. · filed 2005-01-18(c)

In this case, however, the court finds that the plaintiffs claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law, and that plaintiffs state law claims do not predominate over the Fedwire claim to the extent that a denial of supplemental jurisdiction would be appropriate. All of the plaintiffs claims in this case arise from a determination regarding whether Mr. Bensman authorized the Fedwire transfers in this case. Therefore, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case would lead to an unnecessary duplication of judicial resources.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain state-law claims while amendment of a federal claim is pending and dismiss them without prejudice if the plaintiff does not pursue a federal claim.

Zucker Ex Rel. AIM Small Cap Growth Fund/A v. Aim Advisors, Inc. · filed 2005-01-20

Pending action by Plaintiff to amend his § 36(b) complaint to name as a defendant the actual recipient 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. 9-11. 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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over foreign plaintiffs’ state law claims when adjudicating them would require difficult choice of law decisions and applying the laws of numerous foreign jurisdictions, with no apparent U.S. interest in the claims.

OSRecovery, Inc. v. One Groupe International, Inc. · filed 2005-01-21(c)

If the Court were to entertain the claims of the plaintiffs injured in numerous foreign jurisdictions, it would have to resolve difficult issues of choice of law, and if New York choice of law looks to the laws of the countries where the alleged conduct or injury occurred, the Court would have to apply the laws of those numerous jurisdictions. • Such an exercise not only would be daunting, it would disservice the interests of other countries in protecting their own citizens. Nor does the Court see any conceivable interest the U.S. might have in handling fraud claims based on foreign injuries caused by a foreign defendant engaged in foreign conduct. As the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be improper, all of the claims of the foreign plaintiffs are dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when any one of its four listed grounds applies.

Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant · filed 2005-03-08(c)

The language of the statute is disjunctive, meaning that any one of the four reasons would be sufficient to decline to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate and the plaintiff initially chose a state forum.

Nichols v. All Points Transport Corp. of Michigan, Inc. · filed 2005-03-18(c)

The court notes that even if supplemental jurisdiction did exist, it would nevertheless decline to exercise such jurisdiction because state law claims predominate and Plaintiff initially chose a state law forum.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining claims raise complex issues of state law or all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed; either ground may suffice independently.

Vigilant Insurance v. EEMAX, Inc. · filed 2005-03-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

The present case implicates two of the three specific bases for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), and the court finds each of these bases to be independently sufficient. As discussed below, the remaining claims raise complex issues of Connecticut law, and the court will decline the exercise of jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when their different legal principles make joint litigation contrary to judicial economy and the interest of justice.

Levy v. Office of the Legislative Auditor · filed 2005-03-28(c)

This Court has the discretion to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, the Court does not believe it is in the interest of justice or judicial economy to do so. The state law claims are based on legal principles that are substantially different from the § 1983 claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons, assuming the court has supplemental jurisdiction in the first place.

Adamson v. Adamson (In Re Adamson) · filed 2005-07-06(c)(4)

Assuming, ... that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction, a dubious proposition in view of the decisions in the First Circuit, ... this Court shall abstain from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when hearing them would require resolving difficult choice-of-law issues across numerous jurisdictions and disserve those jurisdictions’ interests.

Fraternity Fund Ltd. v. Beacon Hill Asset Management LLC · filed 2005-07-06(c)

Presiding over these claims would .require the Court to resolve difficult issues of choice of law and, if New York choice of law favors the jurisdiction where the alleged conduct or injury occurred, to apply the laws of those numerous jurisdictions. Such a task is all the more daunting given that the number of plaintiffs who have failed to state a federal securities claim against the Beacon Hill Defendants is not insignificant relative to the total number of plaintiffs — they make up more than a quarter. Entertaining these claims, moreover, would disservice the interests of other jurisdictions in protecting their own citizens. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the Beacon Hill Defendants by plaintiffs who allege no federal securities claim them.

A court may deny dismissal of supplemental state law claims when the plaintiff can still amend a dismissed federal claim to state a cause of action.

Fetzer v. Cambria County Human Services · filed 2005-07-07(c)(3)

The Defendants seek dismissal of the state law claims based upon the presumed dismissal of all federal claims. ... Because the Plaintiff could still amend his complaint to state a cause of action under the second portion of § 1985(2), the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice as to the state law claims.

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

El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · filed 2005-07-12(c)

Accordingly, we shall exercise our discretion to decline to exercise our supplemental jurisdiction any further and shall therefore defer this matter to the Pennsylvania state courts.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when novel and complex state law issues favor resolution in state court.

Martin v. School District No. 394 · filed 2005-07-14(c)

Here, Plaintiffs state law claims raise novel and complex issue of Idaho law which the Court finds, as a matter of comity, should be addressed by the state courts. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to assert jurisdiction over Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims and will remand this action to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise novel state law issues, substantially predominate over a federal claim, or involve compelling reasons such as forum shopping.

Molski v. Kahn Winery · filed 2005-08-09(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4)

Because these state law claims raise novel issues of state law and because the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal ADA claim, the Court may properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under § 1367(c)(1) and (2). ... Furthermore, as Judge Feess and Judge Wilson have pointed out, Plaintiff Molski’s litigation history also shows that he is clearly involved in forum shopping, which provides another compelling reason to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims under § 1367(c)(4).

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

Manufactured Home Communities Inc. v. City Of San Jose · filed 2005-08-23(c)

The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts V and VI because the claims raise "novel" issues of State law. Manufactured Home Cmtys., 358 F.Supp.2d at 910 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). ... The district court was correct to conclude that MHC's Counts V and VI raise novel issues of state law. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, and that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Wolfe-Holmes v. AR State Hospital · filed 2005-09-12(c)

We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions to deny Wolfe-Holmes leave to amend, and to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims raise complex state law issues and substantially predominate over the remaining federal claim.

Behavioral Healthcare Partners, Inc. v. Gonzalez-Rivera · filed 2005-09-28(c)

It is clear from the complaint that plaintiffs’ state law claims raise complex issues of state contract law. Moreover, the Court having granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all but the 1st Amendment claim, the state contrad/tort claims would necessarily predominate and predicate the federal claim. Therefore, the Court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will accordingly dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Assuming § 1367 permits bankruptcy courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court may decline to use it to approve a settlement and related injunction when doing so would be an abuse of discretion.

Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Chancellor Corp. (In Re Adley) · filed 2005-11-16

In view of the spilt of authority with respect to the bankruptcy exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, this Court concludes that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction for purposes of allowing the Joint Motion and the entry of the injunctive relief upon which the Joint Motion is predicated, would be an abuse of discretion in light of the numerous problems, discussed in more detail below, associated with the Partial Settlement.

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

Sanders v. City of Union Springs · filed 2005-11-18(c)(1), (c)(3)

The Court finds that claims before this Court pursuant to § 1367(a) present novel or complex issues of Alabama law. Additionally, the federal claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction have now been resolved against Plaintiffs. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) & (3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Alabama law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits the court to keep related state-law claims when they are intertwined with a surviving federal claim.

Doe, Jane v. Smith, Jason · filed 2005-11-21(c)(3)

Because the state and federal issues are intertwined, both should be resolved in federal court.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain related state law claims when a federal claim remains and there is no compelling reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Maizner v. Hawaii, Department of Education · filed 2005-12-01(c)

Finding no other compelling reason for declining supplemental jurisdiction, the court retains jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. Paul · filed 2005-12-05(c)

After reviewing the entire record in this matter, this Court has determined that the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, on balance, favor declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims pursuant to this Court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim only on one of its enumerated grounds.

Buric v. Kelly · filed 2005-12-06(c)

Where, as here, a state law claim arises out of the same events that give rise to the federal claim, a district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction only if its decision is based on one of the enumerated categories under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

McBride v. Putnam · filed 2005-12-08(c)

The District Court properly decided against exercising its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that remained after all federal claims had been dismissed.

Section 1367(c) lets a district court dismiss supplemental Puerto Rico law claims without prejudice after the federal claims are resolved.

Olmeda v. Ortiz-Quinones · filed 2006-01-12(c)

Olmeda's claims under Puerto Rico law remain open, but can be dismissed without prejudice if the district court chooses.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it is factually separate from the surviving federal claims and retaining it would hinder judicial efficiency and risk jury confusion.

Sykes Ex Rel. Estate of Purnell v. McPhillips · filed 2006-01-26(c)

The allegations of deliberate indifference regarding the medical care received at Hale Creek are separate and distinct from the allegations of malpractice/negligence regarding the medical care received at the Hospital. There is no nexus between the facts and circumstances to be demonstrated in the federal action against the Hale Creek defendants and the state law action against the Hospital. For reasons of judicial efficiency, and to avoid jury confusion, supplemental jurisdiction over the malpractice/negligence claim is declined.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when their resolution turns on state law.

Waltrip v. Brooks Agency, Inc. · filed 2006-02-01

Furthermore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Rather, because plaintiffs’ claims all stem from the determination of whether plaintiffs’ insurance agent was legally responsible under state law for failing to renew, i.e. to procure, plaintiffs’ flood insurance, this case is properly remanded to the state court.

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

Banda v. New Jersey Special Treatment Unit Annex · filed 2006-02-03(c)

Also, the District Court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Banda’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Gresh v. Godshall · filed 2006-02-09(c)(3)

In addition, we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion in dismissing without prejudice Gresh’s state- law infliction of emotional distress claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a District Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 480 n.6 (3d Cir. 2000).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the claims supporting original jurisdiction, including at an early stage of the proceedings.

Dolls, Inc. v. City of Coralville, Iowa · filed 2006-03-24(c)(3)

Retaining jurisdiction over this claim is therefore within the Court’s discretion. ... At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court concludes it would be improper to retain jurisdiction over that claim.

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

Chishty v. TEXAS DEPT. OF AGING AND DISABILITY · filed 2006-05-04(c)(3)

This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims now that all of the federal claims against the moving Defendants have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It is therefore ordered that the remaining state law claims against the moving Defendants are hereby REMANDED to the 367th Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction and consider returning a remaining claim to state court when that claim lacks an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Peeler, Sallie N. v. MCI, Incorporated · filed 2006-05-08(c)

Decisions on these questions may be unnecessary if the district judge relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c). ... If the jurisdictional amount is not satisfied with respect to this distinct claim for relief, the district court should consider returning this case to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to consider returning a remaining distinct claim to state court when the original controversy has been resolved and the remaining claim lacks an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Peeler v. McI Inc., and MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. · filed 2006-05-08(c)

Decisions on these questions may be unnecessary if the district judge relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). When WorldCom removed the case, federal jurisdiction was supplied by the fact that an injunction against completing and using the cable would have cost WorldCom more than $75,000. All controversy about the cable’s existence and use having been resolved by the bankruptcy, however, the remaining dispute about access to the fiber boxes (the one near Peeler’s land and 12 others along the Monon Trail) likely is worth less than $75,000. If so, that claim would depend on the supplemental jurisdiction, for it would not have supported removal independently. If the jurisdictional amount is not satisfied with respect to this distinct claim for relief, the district court should consider returning this case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Watkins v. Shabazz · filed 2006-05-22(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Watkins’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to reconsider exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a local law claim after reversal of the ruling on a related federal claim.

Lightfoot v. District of Columbia · filed 2006-05-23(c)

In light of our reversal of summary judgment as to claim six, we think it appropriate to remand claim seven back to the district court for reconsideration of its decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Slezak v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. · filed 2006-06-20(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Slezak’s state law claims for injunctive relief without prejudice to Slezak filing those claims in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims are unlikely to raise novel or complex issues or predominate over a remaining federal claim.

Heimlicher Ex Rel. Estate of Heimlicher v. Steele · filed 2006-07-03(c)

The court finds the state law claims will not likely raise any novel or complex issues of state law, and they are not likely to predominate over the federal claim remaining in this case. Although the court cannot predict whether the Hospital will present the court with grounds to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for damages against it under the EMTALA, based on the present state of the record, that claim remains in the case.

Section 1367(c)(4) requires a federal district court to articulate compelling reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction when the other statutory grounds are absent.

Solomon v. Interior Regional Housing Authority · filed 2006-07-21(c)(4)

Moreover, the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute requires that the federal district court articulate "compelling” reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction absent conditions that would not be present here.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional damages claim presenting an unsettled issue of state law while retaining claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Moeller v. Bradford County · filed 2006-08-10(c)(1)

As our prior reasoning established, our previous Order declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction solely to the extent that Plaintiffs sought damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Therefore, we will sustain the objections and hold that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution will proceed to the extent that they seek injunctive and declaratory relief.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal basis is eliminated early and the remaining claims have little factual connection to it.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Warrantech Corp. · filed 2006-08-17(c)

Yet § 1367(a)’s command is moderated by the factors provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), which allow a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction under certain circumstances. ... We conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Warrantech’s state-law counterclaims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when only state-law claims remain; those claims should be dismissed without prejudice.

Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Cobb County · filed 2006-08-17(c)

When a district court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because only state law claims remain, the district court should dismiss the state law claims without prejudice “so that the claims may be refiled in the appropriate state court.” Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the state claims raise an issue of first impression.

Saeemodarae v. Mercy Health Services · filed 2006-10-05(c)(1), (c)(3)

On the other hand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (3), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over Saeemodarae’s remaining state-law claims of religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ICRA, where the interpretation of the ICRA exemption for “bona fide religious institutions” is a matter of first impression.

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

Davis v. Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2006-10-24

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over these two claims in light of the Court’s conclusion that OD-24 is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims under § 1367(c)(3), and that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Mwabira-Simera v. Sodexho Marriot Management Services · filed 2006-11-03(c)(3)

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c) makes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction discretionary and allows a district court to retain it when the record suggests no ground for declining it.

Reinhart Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Excel Directional Technologies, LLC · filed 2006-11-15(c)

Although the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, the evidence before the court at this point does not suggest that any of the exceptions that might lead this court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in the instant action.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed and a remaining state claim presents a novel issue of state law.

Brim v. Exxonmobil Pipeline Co. · filed 2007-01-10(c)(1), (c)(3)

In this instance, § 1367(c)(3) clearly applies because the district court dismissed the former employees’ federal statutory claims on summary judgment. Section 1367(c)(1) also applies because the blacklisting claim, pursuant to TEX. LAB. CODE § 52.031, presents a novel issue of state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Moore Ex Rel. Moore v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2007-01-22(c)

Because plaintiffs raise novel claims under the Kansas Constitution and the Kansas Open Records Act, and because plaintiffs have not opposed defendants’ request that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, the Court agrees that it should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law claims. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when no ground for declining supplemental jurisdiction applies and judicial economy favors hearing it.

Simons v. New York · filed 2007-01-31(c)

In this case, plaintiffs’ defamation claim does not raise a novel or complex state law issue, nor does it substantially predominate over the federal constitutional claims. Moreover, all but one of plaintiffs’ federal claims will survive the present motion, and no exceptional circumstances or other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction exist. Finally, the defamation claim arises out of and involves the same facts and circumstances as the other claims such that judicial economy favors the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ defamation claim on the ground that supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised will be denied.

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

Banks v. Hayward · filed 2007-02-13(c)

A district court may decide against exercising its supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims that remain after all federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims when the impact of prior state-court rulings on those claims is unclear.

Waybright Ex Rel. Waybright v. Frederick County Maryland Department of Fire & Rescue Services · filed 2007-03-01(c)

Based on the record presently before this Court, moreover, it is difficult to determine the precise impact of those rulings. Therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Baptiste v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department · filed 2007-03-21(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Baptiste’s state claims after it had granted summary judgment on all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over additional parties, but a court may decline to exercise it over state law claims when the plaintiffs do not request it.

Schwartz v. Town of Plainville · filed 2007-04-09(a)

While 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over parties in certain circumstances, Plaintiffs (who originally field the action in state court) do not urge the Court to do so in this case. Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against EMTs Walsh and Berscler and dismiss those claims without prejudice to Plaintiffs asserting them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed, but the court should reconsider that decision if a federal claim is remanded.

Summum v. Duchesne City · filed 2007-04-17(c)(3)

But because we remand Summum’s federal claim for prospective injunctive relief, the District Court should reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Summum’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and remand it to state court in light of developments in state law.

Peacock v. County of Orange · filed 2007-05-25(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Peacock’s FEHA claim and in remanding it to state court in light of developments in state law.

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

Walter v. Drayson · filed 2007-07-06(c)

Because the state law claims also substantially predominate over the RICO claims alleged in the SAC, and because this court has dismissed all of the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims asserted in the SAC.

When a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims in a case removed from state court, those claims should be remanded to state court.

Albert W. May, III v. Boyd Bros. Transportation · filed 2007-07-23(c)

Under the circumstances at hand, where the case was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court, precedent dictates that the district court should have remanded the remaining claims to state court.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law election dispute when comity supplies a compelling reason.

May v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, AL · filed 2007-08-24(c)(4)

In addition, requests to enjoin or set aside an election are exceptional circumstances in which there are other compelling reasons, based on comity, that counsel against assuming supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only when one of its four listed conditions is met.

Ortega v. Brock · filed 2007-08-07(c)

Because § 1367(a) provides that the court “shall” have supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims except (in relevant part) as provided in § 1367(c), this court is without authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case unless one of the four preconditions set out in subsection (c) is met.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act claims when the Act’s exclusive state-court jurisdiction supplies a compelling reason.

Monroe Ex Rel. C.B.D. v. McNairy County · filed 2007-11-06(c)(4)

Alternatively, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Marlene Fearing v. Lake St. Croix Beach · filed 2007-11-08(c)(3)

Thus, the only issue that remains is the dismissal without prejudice of Fearing’s state-law claims, over which the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and we find no abuse of discretion, see Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances when state counterclaims depend on dismissed federal counterclaims and share no common factual basis with the federal claims that remain.

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC · filed 2007-12-03(c)(4)

Now that the federal (and state) antitrust counterclaims have been dismissed, it would be an anomalous result if those same state law counterclaims were now permitted to remain in federal court when the only federal claims left in the action are the record companies’ copyright claims. Such a result would encourage defendants with state law counterclaims that could not otherwise be brought in federal court to bring weak federal counterclaims to take advantage of this boot-strapping procedure. ... Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lime Wire’s remaining state law counterclaims.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the only related federal claim has been dismissed and the remaining federal claims are unrelated.

Summit Media LLC v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA · filed 2008-01-02(c)

Second, the Court has ruled above to dismiss Plaintiffs only related claim, thus leaving only unrelated federal law questions before this Court. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this claim as the claim is more properly brought in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that presents a novel issue of state law after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Coffman v. Indianapolis Fire Department · filed 2008-01-15(c)

The court finds Plaintiffs final claim for relief presents a novel issue of state law, as no Indiana court has ever had occasion to rule on a claim based upon the Indiana Access to Public Records Law. Moreover, all of her federal claims have been dismissed. Thus, the original basis for the court’s jurisdiction no longer exists. Given this procedural posture, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claim, and DISMISSES her state law retaliation claim without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to relinquish a state claim after the federal claims fall out before trial when the state claim rests only on supplemental jurisdiction; independent diversity jurisdiction prevents that disposition.

Robinson v. Alter Barge Line, Inc. · filed 2008-01-16(c)(3)

If that claim were in federal court only by virtue of the supplemental jurisdiction, the district court would have discretion to relinquish jurisdiction over it because the federal claims have fallen out before trial. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But as the parties are of diverse citizenship, that disposition is barred.

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

Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, Md. · filed 2008-03-04(c)

Thus taking his claim as one of state law, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2000) (permitting federal courts to decline supple- mental jurisdiction when a state claim "raises a novel or complex issue of State law" or "substantially predominates" over federal claims); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) ("[Supplemental] jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.").

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim when the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, especially when the state claim raises a novel issue of state law.

CAEN v. Medina · filed 2008-03-07(c)(1), (c)(3)

Where, as here, the court has dismissed before trial the only basis for Federal jurisdiction, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state claims. ... Dismissal is warranted on this ground. Additionally, dismissal is especially appropriate here in light of the novel issue of state law raised by Plaintiffs theory, which applies a section of the CPLR which was not enacted until 2006.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the remaining claims raise novel issues of state law.

TONGSON v. County of Maui · filed 2008-04-17(c)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims because it has now dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. In addition, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment raise novel issues of state law that would require this Court to construe certain portions of the HWPA that have not yet been addressed by Hawaii state courts.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice when they raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Cellco Partnership v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, KY. · filed 2008-04-18(c)(1)

These claims raise novel or complex issues of state law and, accordingly, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Under § 1367(c), a court may infer that a district court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it disposed of all federal claims without expressly addressing the state law claims.

Gregory v. County of Maui · filed 2008-04-29(c)

The district court disposed of all the estate’s federal claims on summary judgment, but did not expressly address the estates’ state law claims. Accordingly, we infer that the district court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Willston Basin v. an Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean Geological Formation · filed 2008-05-08(c)

The district court also acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”); see also Foster, 504 F.3d at 1051-52 (holding that the “decision whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed lies within the district court’s discretion”).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no federal cause of action remains.

Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2008-05-13(c)

As the district court correctly found Cao's § 1983 claim time-barred, no federal cause of action remains. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) then, the district court was well within its discretion in declining to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses the federal claims early in the case or the remaining state-law claim raises novel or complex issues of state law.

Schor v. Daley · filed 2008-06-30(c)(1), (c)(3)

Here, at the motion to dismiss stage with little discovery having occurred, the presumption in favor of relinquishing federal jurisdiction applies. Moreover, the remaining claim potentially raises new and complex issues of state and municipal law, which provides another ground for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim, and accordingly, dismisses this claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(4) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over parallel state wage claims when no exceptional circumstances exist and economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor hearing them with the federal claims.

Lindsay v. Government Employees Insurance · filed 2008-07-03(c)(4)

Defendant has identified no such circumstances, and the Court is aware of none. To the contrary, all of the relevant considerations — that is, considerations of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” — militate in favor of this Court asserting supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of those plaintiffs who have not also asserted FLSA claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when an ongoing state receivership creates exceptional circumstances and a compelling reason for the state court to decide overlapping claims.

Munding v. LeMaster & Daniels, P.L.L.C. (In Re Spokane Raceway Park, Inc.) · filed 2008-07-09(c)(4)

Having determined that the same factual situation gave rise to both the federal and state law claims, a federal court abstains from exercising its jurisdiction if there are exceptional circumstances which give rise to a compelling reason to abstain. ... The exceptional circumstance in this situation is the state court receivership which has been vigorously pursued since 2003.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal claim is dismissed when the state claim presents novel issues and judicial economy does not favor retention.

Lemly v. St. Tammany Parish Hospital District No. 1 · filed 2008-07-30(c)

Here, plaintiffs remaining state law claim raises important and novel issues involving the statutory construction and legislative history of the LEDL. The Louisiana state court is the best forum for adjudication of these issues. Additionally, the Court has not addressed the merits of plaintiffs’ state law claim, and thus no commitment of judicial resources weighs in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction. There has been no pretrial order, and trial is not imminent.