28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Combs v. Homer-Center School District · filed 2008-08-21(c)

Because all federal issues have been decided on summary judgment and since Parents’ RFPA claim raises a novel and potentially complex issue of State law, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parents’ pendent state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when all federal claims have been resolved and the state claim presents a novel or potentially complex question of state law.

Combs v. Homer Ctr Sch Dist · filed 2008-08-21(c)

Because all federal issues have been decided on summary judgment and since Parents’ RFPA claim raises a novel and potentially complex issue of State law, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parents’ pendent state...law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises novel or complex state law questions after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Pheasant Run Condominium Homes Ass'n v. City of Brookfield · filed 2008-09-30(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ constitutional claims fail, I must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state statutory claim. ... Based on subsections (1) and (3) above, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claim. Most importantly, such claim raises novel and complex questions of Wisconsin law.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction while a federal claim remains, but retaining it is ordinarily appropriate after the federal claim has been tried.

Leister v. Dovetail, Inc. · filed 2008-10-23(c)

Ordinarily in a case in which the reverse presumption is invoked, the trial will have led to the dismissal of the federal claim, and here it did not; and while a district judge can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even though the federal claim has not been dismissed, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(1), (3), (4), that is rarely done and we cannot think of any reason why it should be done in this case.

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

Ticket Center, Inc. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico · filed 2008-10-31(c)

However, having found summary judgment should be granted for Banco Popular on all of Ticket Center’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims.

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

Dotson v. Correctional Medical Services · filed 2008-11-03(c)(4)

Alternatively, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. ... Accord Spurlock v. Whitley, 971 F.Supp. 1166 (M.D.Tenn. 1997), aff'd 167 F.3d 995 (6th Cir.1999) (A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “in exceptional circumstances,” there are “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), and the exclusivity provision of the TGTLA provides a compelling reason for this court to decline supplemental jurisdiction of the TGTLA claim.) Accordingly, the state law claim brought against Defendant Smith is dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has dismissed all federal claims and the state claims raise novel legal issues.

Giordano v. Connecticut Valley Hospital · filed 2008-12-03(c)

Because this Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims and because Plaintiffs’ state claims raise novel issues of law, it would be improper for this Court to maintain jurisdiction only to decide those issues.

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

Curran v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2009-01-21(c)

Counts III through IX are founded in state law and are within this Court’s jurisdiction only by reason of 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because the only potential federal claims are being dismissed, there is no reason to retain jurisdiction over the state claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act as an exceptional circumstance, even when subsection (a) would otherwise provide jurisdiction.

Barnett v. Tipton County Board of Education · filed 2009-01-26(c)(4)

The Sixth Circuit has held that it is permissible for a District Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over TGTLA claims because TGTLA claims create an “exceptional circumstance” for declining jurisdiction. ... The Western District of Tennessee has also declined supplemental jurisdiction over TGTLA claims where jurisdiction would otherwise be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Thus, because the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over these claims and because Plaintiffs have not put forth any evidence to support them, Plaintiffs claims under the TGTLA are DISMISSED.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they are neither novel or complex nor predominant over the federal claims.

Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists · filed 2009-02-06(c)

The Court in this case does not find that either of these justifications for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is present here.

Reinstatement of federal claims removes the basis for dismissing related state law claims under § 1367(c), leaving their treatment to the district court on remand.

Rowe v. Educational Credit · filed 2009-03-18(c)

After dismissing Rowe’s federal FDCPA claims under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court dismissed his Oregon state law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because we reinstate the FDCPA claims, the premise for the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims is now gone. We leave it to the district court on remand to deal with these claims as appropriate in light of future developments in the case.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when summary judgment on the federal claims leaves no independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Starling v. United States · filed 2009-05-12(c)(4)

To the extent that Plaintiffs complaint states additional claims under state law, since there is no remaining independent basis for federal jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims as summary judgment is granted for Defendants on Plaintiffs federal claims.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when the state-law question is novel.

Gregory v. Dillard's · filed 2009-05-12

These claims were before the district court based on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Whether the MHRA, through its definition of “place of public accommodation,” extends to retail establishments is a novel question of state law. Because we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the federal claims, we remand the case with directions to modify the final judgment so as to dismiss the claims under the MHRA without prejudice, so they may be decided by the courts of Missouri.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, which it ordinarily should do when federal claims are eliminated before trial.

Barnes v. County of Placer · filed 2009-06-30(c)

Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Therefore, when federal claims are eliminated before trial, district courts should ordinarily decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, especially when unsettled state-law issues and comity favor resolution in state court.

Curtis v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC. · filed 2009-07-14(c)(1), (c)(3)

The Court concludes that retaining jurisdiction over the remaining claims would be inappropriate under the circumstances, and will dismiss the third-party complaint without prejudice to its refiling in state court. ... The supplemental jurisdiction statute permits district courts to “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).

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

JDC MANAGEMENT, LLC v. Reich · filed 2009-07-24(c)

To the extent that the plaintiff intended to raise claims under state law, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when its grounds for declining jurisdiction do not warrant dismissal and judicial economy favors hearing the claims together.

NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim · filed 2009-07-28(c)

Moreover, even if the state law claims overwhelmed the federal claims, judicial economy favors a single action, and there is no reason to defer to a state court for resolution of a dispute among mostly foreign parties. Accordingly, none of the § 1367(c) factors suggest that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline a state law claim when it is the only remaining claim, and leaves that choice to the district court’s discretion.

Crary v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board · filed 2009-08-06(c)

Additionally, since this state law claim is the only remaining claim, we urge the district court to consider declining to address the state law claim as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The decision of the district court on this point, however, is entirely within its discretion.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while adjudicating federal claims.

May v. FEDEX FREIGHT SOUTHEAST, INC. · filed 2009-08-12

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over some state-law claims while declining it over others.

Nielander v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2009-08-31(c)

Thus, we affirm the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims against Mr. Nordell and Republic County even though the court addressed the claims against Ms. Reed and Deputy Perez.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim that raises a novel state law issue, predominates over federal claims, or remains after dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction.

Maxey v. RESTAURANT CONCEPTS II, LLC · filed 2009-09-01(c)

It also appears, upon a review of the pleadings, briefs and discovery record in this case, that Maxey’s public policy claim predominates over his age discrimination claims. Given it is the only claim remaining, I decline, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when there is no justiciable federal question.

Miles v. Township of Barnegat · filed 2009-09-04(c)

Because there was no justiciable federal question, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when the grounds for doing so under that provision are absent.

Pereira v. Foot Locker, Inc. · filed 2009-09-11(c)(2)

As the reasons laid out in De Asencio for denying supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(c)(2) are not present here, this Court moved to additional jurisdictional analysis.

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

El-Hewie v. Bergen County · filed 2009-09-17(c)(3)

We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over El-Hewie's state law claims, which centered on the defendants' alleged "violation] of the essential framework of N.J.A.C. [§ ] 6A:9-8.3 [("Requirements for Instructional Certificate”) ].”

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) leave the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the sole federal claim has been dismissed and the remaining state claim presents complex issues of state law.

Cherry v. City of Bowling Green, Kentucky · filed 2009-10-05(c)(1), (3)

The remaining questions in the case should now perhaps be answered by a Kentucky court rather than a federal one. The sole federal claim in the case has been properly dismissed, and the remaining state claim presents complex issues of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3). But the question whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, we leave to the district court in the first instance.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing federal claims, but reinstatement of federal claims permits reconsideration of that choice.

Committee Concerning Community Improvement v. City of Modesto · filed 2009-10-08(c)

The District Court’s assessment of the state-law claims was assuredly reasonable; hence, dismissal of those claims cannot be characterized as an abuse of discretion. However, the dismissal of the state-law claims came about in the context of the dismissal of all the federal claims. We are reinstating certain of the federal claims and remanding for further pro- ceedings. It is not impossible that the District Court would be more hospitable to entertaining the state-law claims when addressed as companions to cognate federal claims. To permit the District Court to consider whether it would, in the context of addressing the reinstated claims, rethink its dismissal of the state-law claims, we will vacate the dismissal of those claims.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, taking account of novel state law issues, judicial economy, convenience, and possible forum manipulation.

C & J MANAGEMENT CORP. v. Anderson · filed 2009-10-20(c)

Indeed, § 1367 explicitly gives a federal district court discretion to decline jurisdiction when “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” or where it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” or where, “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... In sum, the Court concludes Plaintiffs’ state law claims should be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) so that they may be filed in Iowa state court.

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

Shahin v. Darling · filed 2009-10-29(c)(3)

To the extent that Shahin may have been alleging state law violations, the District Court was correct in declining to extend supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim, but does not permit it to decline an independent basis of subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim.

NE Wood Pellet v. NE Pellet · filed 2009-10-30(c)

Section 1367(c) provides that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim.” It does not authorize a district court to refuse to exercise any other kind of subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim.

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

Whittaker v. County of Lawrence · filed 2009-12-07(c)(1), (c)(3)

These claims raise novel and complex issues of Pennsylvania law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Moreover, the Court has already concluded that the Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) leaves a district court discretion to retain a state-law claim even if it may raise a novel or complex issue of state law.

Krasnor v. Spaulding Law Office · filed 2009-12-17(c)(1)

Similarly, the court is not prepared at this stage of the litigation, Defendant’s suggestion to the contrary, to utilize the supplemental jurisdictional statute to excise Count III simply because it may raise “a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after it grants summary judgment on the federal claim, when state court is a more appropriate forum.

Mester v. Otter Lake Water Commission, ADGPTV · filed 2010-02-09(c)(3)

It was Count I which provided the Defendant with a basis to remove the action to federal court. The Court finds that state court is a more appropriate forum to consider an inverse condemnation claim under Illinois law. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Count II. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when an unresolved question of state law remains.

Alleva v. New York City Department of Investigation · filed 2010-03-12(c)

Notwithstanding this single case, there remains a question of whether the analytical frameworks of the ADEA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL will continue to mirror one another after Gross; therefore, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Aleva’s state and municipal law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the state claims present complex questions of state law.

Sexton v. KENTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER · filed 2010-03-18(c)

Because the court is dismissing plaintiffs’ federal causes of action, and because their state law claims present complex questions of immunity under Kentucky law, the court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Ahmed v. Evergreen Water Sewer District · filed 2010-04-05(c)(3)

To the extent Ahmed raises any state law claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Schaefer v. Las Cruces Public School District · filed 2010-04-30(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because the Complaint raises complex issues of state tort and sovereign-immunity law, and because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will decline jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remand those back to Third Judicial District Court, County of Doña Ana, State of New Mexico.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction remains.

Burke v. Acosta · filed 2010-05-14

However, having found no basis for subject matter jurisdiction, the district court’s April 2009 order properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Burke’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises unsettled state-law issues when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling · filed 2010-05-17(c)

Here, the first and third factors are the basis for this Court declining jurisdiction. ... Having reviewed the allegations, this Court finds the sixth claim raises issues of state law which are best addressed by the Idaho Supreme Court. More importantly, as to the third factor, the state law claim is the sole remaining claim and would be the only claim over which this Court would be exercising jurisdiction. To do so would be improper.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the only federal claim against a defendant when the remaining state law claim may raise issues better addressed by state courts.

Shames v. California Travel & Tourism Commission · filed 2010-06-08(c)(1), (c)(3)

The dis- trict court properly exercised its discretion and declined to employ supplemental jurisdiction, reasoning that it had already “dismissed the only federal claim against the CTTC,” and noting that the Act “may implicate questions better addressed by the California courts in the first instance.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3); Bryant v. Adventist Health Sys./West, 289 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2002).

A district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(3) is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Unger v. City of Mentor · filed 2010-07-21(c)(3)

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). To reverse, we must find an abuse of discretion. ... Furthermore, even if we chose to entertain the argument, no evidence of abuse of discretion exists.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related local claims when federal claims remain and the local claims do not substantially predominate.

DL v. District of Columbia · filed 2010-08-10(c)

The Court did not dismiss claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and the local claims are part of the same case or controversy as the federal claims. Furthermore, the local claims do not substantially predominate over the federal claims.

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

J.D.P. Ex Rel. Pope v. Cherokee County, Georgia School District · filed 2010-08-18

Additionally, after careful consideration, the Court hereby declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. The Court DISMISSES the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after granting summary judgment on the federal claim, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Roten v. McDonald · filed 2010-09-21(c)

After determining that summary judgment was appropriate as to Roten’s federal claim, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to the extent Roten raised a state law claim for assault and/or battery. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on its listed grounds; when none applies, the court may retain related state law claims.

Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Cola · filed 2010-10-04(c)

Moreover, none of the circumstances set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) apply, as there are no novel or complex issues of state law, the state law claims do not predominate over the Lanham Act, a federal claim remains in the case, and there are no other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for compelling reasons even when federal claims remain against other defendants.

In Re Beacon Associates Litigation · filed 2010-10-05(c)(4)

While federal claims remain as to other Defendants, and supplemental jurisdiction ... is permissible, there are a number of compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction as to these claims even while deciding other state law claims on the merits. ... Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and these claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims fail to state a viable claim for relief.

Tindell v. Commonwealth of PA · filed 2010-10-26(c)(3)

In light of Tindell’s failure to state a viable claim for relief under federal law, we understand the District Court to have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Tindell’s state law claims. Such a course was within the Court’s discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of the federal claims when comity favors adjudication in state court.

CITIZENS LEGAL ENFORCEMENT & RESTORATION v. Connor · filed 2011-01-11(c)(3)

Although the Court could retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims against PVID pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), issues of comity make declining jurisdiction the obvious choice. A California citizen is suing a California governmental entity under California law. California has an overwhelming interest in adjudicating Plaintiffs claims in its state courts. Therefore, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims against PVID WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after resolving the other claims in the case.

Poulin v. the Thomas Agency · filed 2011-01-13

The Court declines to exercise its discretion to invoke supplemental jurisdiction over these counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority · filed 2011-01-26(c)

Having disposed of the plaintiffs’ federal claims, to the extent that plaintiffs’ claims under the NYHRL are not duplicative of those asserted under Title VII, which are dismissed for the reasons stated above, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Tran v. Sonic Industries Services, Inc. · filed 2011-02-08(c)

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any surviving state-law claims Plaintiff asserts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline to consider state law claims when the plaintiff has no actionable federal claim.

Bridgeforth v. TD Bank NA · filed 2011-02-15(c)

Because Bridgeforth presented no actionable federal claim, the District Court did not err in declining to consider any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against individual defendants when all federal claims against those defendants have been dismissed.

Blackmon v. U.S.D. 259 School District · filed 2011-02-15(c)

Plaintiff brought suit against the individual Defendants in their individual or official capacities, to the extent Plaintiff was bringing these claims against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims because all federal claims against these employees have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it remands the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Perkins v. Beltway Capital, LLC · filed 2011-02-24(c)(3)

We will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over qualifying claims, but does not permit it to remand a claim over which it has original jurisdiction.

Anjali Shah v. Hyatt Corp · filed 2011-04-27(c)

In choosing to do so, however, the District Court went a step too far when it remanded Shah’s claim because § 1367 does not permit a federal court to decline original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim whose proceedings would likely follow final disposition of the original claims.

Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian · filed 2011-05-09(c)(3)

Such proceedings would likely occur after the Court has finally disposed of the parties’ original claims, which is an additional reason to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a new corporate dissolution petition raised after trial when resolving it would require further fact finding after the original claims are disposed of.

Waters v. Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial, Inc. · filed 2011-05-09(c)(3)

It is one thing to have the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim in the interest of judicial economy; it is another thing entirely to seek to extend the Court’s jurisdiction by adding a completely new claim after the trial has been held. For the foregoing reasons, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendants’ [198] Petition for Involuntary Dissolution.

Section 1367(c) calls for courts deciding whether to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to consider its statutory factors together with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Enochs v. Lampasas County · filed 2011-05-17(c)

In determining whether a district court improperly refused to relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, we look to the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and to the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims resting on facts distinct from the federal claim, assuming supplemental jurisdiction otherwise exists.

Gordon Properties, LLC v. First Owners' Ass'n (In Re Gordon Properties, LLC) · filed 2011-05-23(c)(2)

It is not necessary to determine this issue in this instance because if bankruptcy courts have supplemental jurisdiction, it may be declined under § 1367(c)(2). Here, it would be declined. The claims raised in Counts II, III, and IV are state cause of actions and are unrelated to whether the automatic stay has been violated. The factual predicates of the actions in the claims in Counts II, III, and IV differ from the factual predicate necessary to establish the claim in Count I.

Section 1367 does not permit a court to dismiss claims by declining supplemental jurisdiction when the court has original jurisdiction over those claims.

Butler v. DIRECTSAT USA, LLC · filed 2011-07-06

Plaintiffs have alleged that this court has original jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); they are not before the court pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court cannot decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and thereby dismiss the claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related foreign copyright claims when applying foreign law will not unduly burden the court and hearing the claims together promotes judicial economy.

Rundquist v. SE · filed 2011-07-20(c)

The Court sees no basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction over Count III of the plaintiffs Amended Complaint. Application of the laws of foreign countries will not overly burden the Court and will promote judicial economy.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related foreign copyright claims when applying foreign law will not overly burden the court and retaining the claims promotes judicial economy.

Rundquist v. Ag · filed 2011-07-20(c)

The Court sees no basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction over Count III of the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Application of the laws of foreign countries will not overly burden the Court and will promote judicial economy.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after all federal claims are dismissed, particularly when discovery on state issues has not begun and state law is developing.

K.W. v. City of New York · filed 2011-08-09(c)(1), (c)(3)

Discretion is exercised declining to accept supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims because all of the underlying federal claims have been dismissed and no discovery has taken place on state issues. In addition, the subject of bullying in New York public schools is a developing state legal issue.

Section 1367(c) requires a court deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction to balance judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Williams v. Citigroup Inc. · filed 2011-08-11(c)

If, on remand, the district court is again presented with the discretionary decision whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), it must “balance[] the traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” in exercising its discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining local law claims or dismiss them without prejudice.

Vargas v. Stanley · filed 2011-09-09(c)

Accordingly, we remand the NYCHRL claims to the district court, to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and if it decides to do so, to consider the NYCHRL claims under the appropriate standard, separate and apart from the federal and state claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to reconsider exercising supplemental jurisdiction when only a state law claim remains.

Christie Bowers v. Kletke · filed 2011-10-05(c)(3)

Because in the present posture of the case, only a state law claim remains, the district court may choose to reconsider whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Mincy v. Klem · filed 2011-10-14(c)(3)

Finally, we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mincy’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Figueroa v. Buccaneer Hotel Inc., 188 F.3d 172, 181 (3d Cir. 1999).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to reassess whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over local-law claims after related federal claims are restored.

Rodriguez v. Municipality of San Juan · filed 2011-10-20(c)

Our vacating the dismissal of two federal-law theories (political discrimination and free-speech retaliation) against Santini and the municipality erases the basis for that ruling. Consequently, we vacate the order forsaking jurisdiction over the local-law claims against these two defendants as well, see, e.g., ... though the judge can reassess this aspect of the case on remand, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (2), and (4); Pejepscot Indus. Park, Inc. v. Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 195, 206 (1st Cir. 2000).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after it grants summary judgment on the federal claim.

Keating v. Nebraska Public Power District · filed 2011-11-07(c)

Finally, the district court was permitted to dismiss without prejudice the pendent state-law ultra vires claim in light of its grant of summary judgment on the section 1983 claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims provide no available relief.

Kohler v. Southland Foods, Inc. · filed 2011-11-23(c)(3)

Given the absence of any available relief under federal law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kohler’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Rodriguez v. Cook County, Ill. · filed 2011-12-15(c)

It is apparent from the district court’s discussion, how- ever, that the court would have relinquished supple- mental jurisdiction under §1367(c) whether or not litigation in federal court is forbidden.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in its discretion.

Thomas v. Northeastern University · filed 2012-01-10(c)(3)

The District Court also acted within its discretion in declining to exercise any supplemental jurisdiction that may have been available.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it disposes of the federal claims.

Turzai v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 2012-01-13(c)(3)

Turzai’s rebuke of the District Court for its failure to acknowledge an additional state law claim against Bottesch is unintelligible given the Court’s discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over those state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no claim within its original jurisdiction remains.

Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Moon · filed 2012-02-27(c)(3)

Although the parties have undertaken discovery and Lange has moved for summary judgment, no claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction remain and therefore the Court may choose whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this pending state-law claim. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Moon’s Third-Party Complaint, and it will dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claim remains.

Thomas v. Nova Southeastern University · filed 2012-03-13(c)(3)

The District Court also acted within its discretion in declining to exercise any supplemental jurisdiction that may have been available. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) gives no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that original-jurisdiction claims were dismissed when related federal claims remain viable.

De La Mata v. Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority · filed 2012-03-30(c)

Since the related claims conferring original jurisdiction remain viable, I do not have occasion to decline jurisdiction on that ground.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they raise a complex state law issue and no federal claims remain.

Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. · filed 2012-04-04(c)

Because Trinity’s claims under HSCA raise a complex issue of state law, and because no federal claims survive summary judgment, the court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the relevant factors support remand.

Bierman v. Toshiba Corporation · filed 2012-05-31(c)

The district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims was not an abuse of discretion.

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

Goudeau v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board · filed 2012-07-31

Pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, and it will be dismissed WITHOUT prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a former attorney’s fee claim arising from work before the litigation when the original claims have been dismissed.

Bruton v. Carnival Corp. · filed 2012-08-21(c)(3)-(4)

Finally, under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, the Court may “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... [if] the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or ... there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3-4). For the reasons articulated above, and in accordance with the supporting cases we relied upon, the Court finds that supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised over Fox’s claim to fees and costs.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy outweighs grounds for declining it.

Zimmerman v. Poly Prep Country Day School · filed 2012-08-28(c)

The Court concludes that concerns of judicial economy outweigh any possible grounds for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the remaining claim raises contested issues of state law and litigating it in state court would not be unduly costly or wasteful.

Hall v. Mid-State Machine Products · filed 2012-09-11(c)(1), (c)(3)

Here, although the evidentiary bases for Mr. Hall’s MWPA and ADEA claims are similar, requiring the parties to litigate the state claim in state court would not be unduly costly or wasteful and would advance principles of comity.

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

Brown v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. · filed 2012-09-17(c)

First, declination under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is plainly discretionary.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to keep remaining state-law claims or leave them to state court.

Huntley v. City of Owasso · filed 2012-09-27(c)

On remand, the district court may consider whether its further examination of the negligence claims is merited in light of the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, ... and comity, or whether it would be more suitable for those claims to be addressed by an Oklahoma court.4 See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been resolved and the remaining state-law claim presents unsettled questions of state law.

Santora v. Red Clay Consolidated School District · filed 2012-10-26(c)(1), (c)(3)

Thus, there are grounds not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction not only under § 1367(c)(3) but also § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed.

Sambreel Holdings LLC v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2012-11-29(a)

Because the Court finds that the federal claims should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining pendant state law claims and therefore dismisses claims 5-7 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the claims alleged to support original jurisdiction.

Clear Sky Car Wash, LLC v. City of Chesapeake · filed 2012-12-18(a)

Therefore, if the Court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and causes of action alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, it will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any related state-law claims.

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

Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority · filed 2012-12-21(c)

In view of our decision, we see no basis under that statute for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: the state-law discrimination claim does not “raise[] a novel or complex issue of State law,” does not “substantially predominate[ ] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,” and does not present “exceptional circumstances” leading to “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Gomez v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc. · filed 2013-01-07(c)(3)

Though the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the fair representation claim, this does not revive the Stewards’ state law claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing. The District Court indicated that even if it if had original jurisdiction it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Stewards’ state law claim. We need not disturb this disposition.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims when an amended complaint leaves only state-law causes of action.

Fastmetrix, Inc. v. ITT Corp. · filed 2013-01-31(c)

Accordingly, it would be appropriate to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed and the remaining claims raise developing issues of local law.

Jefferies v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-02-19(c)(1), (c)(3)

When there are no federal issues remaining, and the only remaining issues touch on developing areas of D.C. common law, it is appropriate for the Court to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to remand those claims to Superior Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it declines to hear the declaratory judgment action.

Artful Color, Inc. v. Hale · filed 2013-03-04(c)

The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Carabello v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2013-03-06(c)

Although Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction, this decision is purely discretionary.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the state claims involve complex issues or appear to predominate.

Shearer v. Tacoma School District No. 10 · filed 2013-04-29(c)

In this case, the claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, are dismissed by this order. The state law claims, notably those with regard to breach of contract, estoppel, and interpretation of the provisions of RCW 28A, appear to involve complex issues of state law, particularly in light of the facts in the record. Further, the claims under state law appear to predominate over the federal constitutional claims over which the court had original jurisdiction. The parties should be required to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and should not dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over unresolved state-law questions concerning the state’s administration of its government, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Comcast Phone of Connecticut, Inc. · filed 2013-05-01(c)

Because “principles of federalism and comity” instruct us to leave unresolved questions of state law to the states “where those questions concern the state’s interest in the administration of its government,” we do not think that the district court abused its discretion by passing on this issue. Valencia v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 306 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) provides no ground to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claim remains viable and no other basis for declining jurisdiction is shown.

Ocasio v. RAAD Broadcasting Corp. · filed 2013-06-24(c)

Since the Title VII claim conferring original jurisdiction remains viable and RAAD has not argued that Pagán’s other claims are outside supplemental jurisdiction, there are no grounds on which to dismiss the claims under Puerto Rico law.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only over claims before it.

Hammel v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation · filed 2013-06-28(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or “there are other compelling reasons.” I cannot decline jurisdiction over claims that are not before me, however.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining state law claims raise developing issues of local law.

Runnymede-Piper v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-07-03(c)(1), (c)(3)

The factors enumerated in Section 1367(c) weigh in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction, as there are no federal claims remaining, and the only surviving claims touch on developing areas of District of Columbia common law.

Section 1367(c) calls for reconsideration of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim remains in the case.

Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head · filed 2013-07-25(c)

In light of our holding today, the district court must reconsider whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

When a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction in a removed case, it must remand the remaining state law claims to state court rather than dismiss them with prejudice.

Pace v. Peters · filed 2013-07-26

Accordingly, because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court under § 1441, the district court should have remanded Pace’s state law tort claims to the state court, rather than dismissing them with prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed; when a federal claim is restored on appeal, the court may reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. · filed 2013-08-20(c)(3)

Because our decision to remand this matter as to the CERCLA § 113(f)(3)(B) claim means that not all claims over which the District Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, we will also vacate and remand the District Court’s order as to supplemental jurisdiction, to give the District Court an opportunity to consider exercising its jurisdiction over the claims brought under state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that would substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Independent Living Center v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2013-09-19(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the state claim “substantially predominates” over the federal claim. ... The risk is far too great that the 61 breach of contract crosscomplaints would “predominate over” the federal claims in plaintiffs’ action.

After dismissing the federal cause of action, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Jackson v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People · filed 2013-10-08(c)

However, having dismissed the federal cause of action, it is well-within the district court’s discretion on remand to dismiss the state law claims by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the state claims are already being litigated in state court.

Reardon v. Keating · filed 2013-10-29(c)

In the case at bar, it is particularly appropriate for this Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims, because core questions concerning those claims are presently being litigated in the state courts, having progressed so far that the parties are waiting for the Supreme Court of the State to decide them.

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

Gardner v. TBO Capital LLC · filed 2013-12-04(c)

The Court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over this case because, in dismissing Plaintiffs’ FDCPA claim, the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” and the remaining state law claims “substantially predominate” over the now-dismissed federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act claims because Tennessee’s preference for state-court adjudication is an exceptional circumstance.

Nixon ex rel. A.N. v. Hardin County Board of Education · filed 2013-12-27(c)(4)

A district court may, in its discretion, decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim even if jurisdiction would otherwise be proper under § 1367(a). ... Therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs GTLA claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are resolved before trial, unless a reason such as judicial economy favors retaining them.

Beaman v. Souk · filed 2014-01-03(c)(3)

When federal claims are resolved before trial, the general rule is that federal courts should decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. ... Thus, the Court declines to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; a significant and complex state law question can provide an additional reason to decline it.

D & D Associates Inc v. North Plainfield Board of Educ · filed 2014-01-08(c)

By statute, a “district court[] may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” precisely as occurred here. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The application of this privilege represents a significant and complex state law question that suggests an additional reason based on statute to decline supplemental jurisdiction. ... The District Court therefore did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no plausible federal claim for relief.

Nye v. Newport Police · filed 2014-01-22(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by Nye, as the court finds that the complaint fails to state any plausible federal claim for relief. The court therefore declines to address whether Nye has stated any plausible claim for relief under state law, as all of Nye's state law claims would properly be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), if the federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the pleaded federal cause of action is not actionable.

Braun v. Gonzales · filed 2014-01-30(c)

Accordingly, the District Court could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on four grounds, but provides no basis to do so when none applies.

City of Evanston v. Texaco, Inc. · filed 2014-02-21(c)

Defendants barely acknowledge § 1367(c), let alone show that any of its four grounds apply here, and no such grounds are apparent in any event.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental state claims even when they substantially predominate if fairness and economy weigh against remand.

Citrano v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. · filed 2014-02-27(c)

Here, the plaintiffs’ six state law tort claims against 36 non-removing defendants substantially predominate over the single federal issue in this case — GE’s assertion of the federal officer defense. However, if GE’s federal defense fails and it is found liable in federal court, severing the claims will likely prejudice GE’s ability to seek contribution through cross claims against the other defendants proceeding in state court. ... Accordingly, considerations of fairness and economy weigh against remanding the claims against the non-removing defendants at this time.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on its listed grounds; none warranted declining jurisdiction over related state law unfair competition and conversion claims.

Potomac Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Takoma Academy Alumni Ass'n · filed 2014-03-04(c)

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when: (1) a claim raises a complex or novel state law issue; (2) the state claim substantially predominates; (3) all claims over which the court had original jurisdiction are dismissed; or (4) there are exceptional circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, none of these elements favor denying supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims for common law unfair competition and conversion.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an appeal of a state agency’s permit denial.

McCurry v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Division of Arkansas · filed 2014-03-05(c)

The Court declines to exercise its pendent jurisdiction over any appeal.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain closely related state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Gill v. Village of Melrose Park · filed 2014-03-27(c)

The state-law claims are so intertwined with the constitutional tort claims that none of “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” would be served by declining supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when their resolution presents complex issues better addressed in state court.

Samuel's Temple Church of God in Christ v. Parade Place, LLC (In re Parade Place, LLC) · filed 2014-05-02(c)

There are several reasons a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, including if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State Law,” or if, “in exceptional circumstances, there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Assuming the Court has the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over monetary claims the Church might have against Valley, the Court declines to do so. Resolution of whether those claims are barred by res judicata is muddied by the lengthy, complex history of the Foreclosure Action in the State Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they predominate over the federal claim and fairness favors remand.

Genusa v. Asbestos Corp. · filed 2014-05-08(c)

Consistent with it, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the relevant claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Kungle v. Executive Officers, State Farm Insurance · filed 2014-06-16(c)(3)

However, “a district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that forms part of the same case or controversy if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” McManus v. District of Columbia, 530 F. Supp. 2d 46, 69 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). Because this Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims—those based on the Constitution or laws of the United States—and since none of the actions giving rise to the plaintiff’s common law claims occurred in this jurisdiction, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court declines to address the merits of the plaintiff’s common law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local law claims when the federal claims are dismissed early and the relevant considerations favor dismissal without prejudice.

Rivera v. Brooklyn Hospital Medical Center · filed 2014-06-30(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state and local law claims since the federal claims are being dismissed at an early stage and all relevant considerations weigh in favor of dismissing those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Fisher v. Miller · filed 2014-07-08(c)

As with his claims against Sadowski, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Fisher sought to raise against the Police Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Foster v. Mountain Coal Co. · filed 2014-07-30(c)

However, since the I grant summary judgment on Plaintiff Fisk’s ADEA and ADA claims, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff Fisk’s supplemental state law claims.

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

Rowe v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2014-08-04(c)

However, since the Court grants summary judgment on Plaintiffs FMLA and ADA claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, even if it previously granted partial summary judgment on the state-law claims.

Kolbek v. Twenty First Century Holiness Tabernacle Church, Inc. · filed 2014-08-21(c)

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state- law claims without prejudice, notwithstanding its previous decision granting partial summary judgment.

Section 1367(c) allows a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when claims within its original jurisdiction remain and none of the listed grounds for declining jurisdiction exists.

Christensen v. Quinn · filed 2014-09-10(c)

There are four specific instances in which a federal court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In this instance, the court has not dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and none of the other specified grounds exists. Accordingly, the court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims at an early stage and remand them to state court.

Craig v. Merrimack Valley Hospital · filed 2014-09-18

... because I decline under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims at this threshold stage in the litigation. ... Rather than dismissal, however, I choose—in the interests of orderly judicial administration and to avoid the necessity that plaintiff must begin this litigation anew—to remand the matter to state court where it began.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when fairness, comity, and judicial economy favor remand.

Bolier & Co. v. Decca Furniture (USA), Inc. · filed 2014-09-19(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides that a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if: ... (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or ... Here, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of remanding the remaining claims to state court.

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

Collins v. Jackson Public School District · filed 2014-09-30(c)(3)

Title 28, Section 1367, of the United States Code confers this Court with discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because there are not any pending federal law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims which now have no jurisdictional fortitude.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing federal claims when an identical state action would make federal adjudication duplicative.

Reyes v. College of Science Administration Rochester Institute of Technology · filed 2014-10-09(c)

Having disposed of plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court notes that plaintiff has already filed an identical action in state court, where this claim may be more appropriately decided. (Dkt. # 8-2 at Exh. D). As such, an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be wastefully duplicative, and is unwarranted.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor resolving them in state court.

Sleppin v. Thinkscan.com, LLC · filed 2014-10-23

In this regard, the Court declines to exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims. This Courts has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an alternative state constitutional claim in its discretion.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Christie · filed 2014-11-21(c)(1)

Additionally, the Court is cognizant that not every Defendant is an agency or officer of the State; however, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Leagues’ alternative claim under the New Jersey Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims, and that decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Bishawi v. Northeast Ohio Correctional Center · filed 2014-12-17(c)(3)

Because no abuse of discretion is evident, we will not overturn the district court’s decision to not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Camacho-Morales v. Caldero · filed 2014-12-18(c)

After dismissing all claims conferring original jurisdiction, the court may in its discretion decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when there are no compelling reasons to exercise it.

Kalick v. United States · filed 2015-03-11(c)(4)

Last, the District Court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kalick’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) because there were no compelling reasons for doing so.

Section 1367(c)(3) and (4) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and when compelling reasons favor local court resolution.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Police Department District of Columbia · filed 2015-03-17(c)(3), (c)(4)

The Court finds it most appropriate to abstain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law claims pursuant to §§ 1367(c)(3) and (4).

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

McGowan v. United States · filed 2015-03-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), when a court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, then it may decline to hear those claims that fall only within it supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Peli Hunt v. Horwitz Cron and Armstrong LLP · filed 2015-03-30(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hunt’s professional negligence claims against Armstrong and Horowitz, Cron & Armstrong, LLP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when remaining state-law claims present uncertain questions better resolved in state court.

Henok v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2015-05-06(c)(1)

Whether or not Dr. Araya’s newly alleged wrongful foreclosure claims are futile or meritorious thus presents a seemingly uncertain question of District of Columbia law that would be better suited to resolution by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Section 1367 permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal bankruptcy proceeding ends when further proceedings are needed and no federal interest favors retaining the claim.

Siragusa v. Collazo · filed 2015-05-19(c)

There is simply no federal interest dictating that this Court should exercise jurisdiction over Collazo’s disposition of these assets, and that makes this “an attractive case for the court to relinquish its jurisdiction to the state courts.”

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims against individual defendants.

Olmeda v. Cameron International Corp. · filed 2015-07-13(c)

Finally, IT IS ORDERED: that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining, ostensibly state law causes of action against the individual defendants.

Section 1367 does not require a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Washington v. Giant of Maryland, LLC · filed 2015-07-23

Because Washington’s brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of his federal claims, he has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. As to Washington’s argument for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (2012), we reject this argument for the reasons stated by the district court.

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

Beaver v. Union County Pennsylvania · filed 2015-07-28(c)

To the extent that Beaver sought to bring claims against the public defenders under state law, the District Court did not err in declining to hear the claims where no federal claim remained.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related third-party claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh against hearing them with the original claim.

Finley Group v. Working Media Group Atlanta, LLC (In re Redf Marketing, LLC) · filed 2015-09-03

Finally, and most indicative of this Court’s recommendation, notions of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties weigh heavily in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate over federal claims and would be difficult for a jury to sort out.

Alexander v. Rosen · filed 2015-10-30(c)

First, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alexander’s state law claims because they “predominate[d]” over the federal claims and created a risk of jury confusion. R. 4 at 1–2; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). That decision was not an abuse of discretion, because the court reasonably concluded that the “numerous and wide-ranging” state law claims would be difficult for a jury to sort out.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises difficult, unsettled issues of state law or remains after all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Griffith v. Caney Valley Public Schools · filed 2016-01-05(c)(1), (c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a “district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] a claim ... if,” among other reasons, “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” or the “court has [already] dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Here, both of these reasons independently warrant declining jurisdiction over Griffith’s ORFA claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Kelly v. Alabama Department of Revenue · filed 2016-01-15(c)

Finally, because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this case, it properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kelly’s state law claims.

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

Chance v. Anthony · filed 2016-01-28(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after it finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant on all federal claims.

Security Alarm Financing Enterprises, L.P. v. Nebel · filed 2016-03-14(c)

Having found a lack of personal jurisdiction over Nebel with regard to all claims over which this Court has federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs intentional misrepresentation claim.

When a district court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state claims in a case removed from state court, it must remand those claims to state court.

McDuffie v. Broward County · filed 2016-05-25(c)

Here, because McDuffie’s state claims were originally filed in state court and later removed to federal court, the claims should have been remanded, rather than dismissed, after the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Borzilleri v. Mosby · filed 2016-05-31(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to dismiss a case where, as here, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, after considering the aforementioned factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Borzilleri’s remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law counterclaim after the federal claim has been resolved.

Pioch v. IBEX Engineering Services, Inc. · filed 2016-06-14(c)

On remand, we note that the district court has two options. The district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the unjust enrichment counterclaim (as it did with respect to IBEX’s fraud counterclaim).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims have been disposed of.

Sherman v. Klenke · filed 2016-06-23(c)(3)

Having disposed of each of Mr. Sherman’s federal claims, we note it is within the discretion of the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.