28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are eliminated, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

MHS Capital v. Goggin · filed 2016-06-23(c)(3)

In determining that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would not be warranted in this matter, the Court observed in the June 13 Order that under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 11.) ... For the reasons stated in the June 13 Order and mentioned above, the Court is persuaded that the claims in the Amended Complaint should be remanded to New York Supreme Court and that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the Complaint is not warranted.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline continued supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after the federal claims have been dismissed.

Hamilton v. Partners Healthcare System, Inc. · filed 2016-07-21

Although my discretion might properly be exercised to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the remaining state claims, ... I decline to do so here.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when unsettled state law and related state proceedings outweigh the inconvenience of dismissal late in the case.

AES Puerto Rico, L.P. v. Trujillo-Panisse · filed 2016-07-27(c)

Therefore, even though the advanced stage of the litigation and the costs of translating documents into English weigh in favor of the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction, those concerns are minimized by the litigation of similar issues in related cases in Commonwealth courts and offset by the comity concerns presented by the unsettled nature of the law relating to the Puerto Rico preemption claim. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over AES-PR’s Commonwealth claims.

Section 1367(c) did not justify declining jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff was permitted to amend his federal claim and no basis for excluding the state claims was identified.

Greenland v. United States · filed 2016-08-22(c)

As Greenland pointed out in his first set of objections, the situation was different from those in which it may be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. As Greenland was permitted to amend his federal claim, it is unclear why he was not permitted to reassert his state law claims.

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

Rose Jacques v. Chase Bank USA NA · filed 2016-09-20(c)

And to the extent Jacques’ “identify theft” claim could be read as invoking state law, it was appropriate for the District Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Harvey v. Saluda Smiles Family Dentistry · filed 2016-09-28(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court has dismissed all- claims for which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a negligence claim when there is no good reason to exercise it.

Freeman v. County of Orange · filed 2016-10-07

Further, even if Freeman’s negligence claim fell under § 959(a), there is no good reason for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim.

Mayner Pope v. Guns · filed 2016-12-22(c)

Further, the district court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim is within that court’s discretion. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2012).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after remand, even if it previously chose to retain the claim.

Pure Wafer Inc. v. City of Prescott · filed 2017-01-10(c)

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for one of four reasons. The district court could have invoked it and dismissed the state-law breach of contract claim at any time, but chose not to. And, nothing in this opinion precludes the district court from invoking § 1367(c) after we remand the case back to it.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate; the court should reconsider exercising it when the remaining federal claim is limited and state law questions may be unsettled.

Patel v. Hall · filed 2017-03-01(c)(2)

On remand, the district court should first reconsider whether it should decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims and instead dismiss them without prejudice in light of the limited nature of the sole remaining federal claim in this action and the arguable existence of some unsettled questions of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim that “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction”).

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

Davis v. Noble · filed 2017-03-03(c)

Davis presumably is referring to the District Court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The District Court did cite authority in support of that decision, and that decision was well within its discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 309 (3d Cir. 2003).

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

Davila v. Smith · filed 2017-03-21(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davila’s state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the claim raises an important question of state law.

Wellman v. St. Louis County · filed 2017-06-08(c)

I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Wellman does not indicate whether Missouri courts have addressed the issue he raises, and given that I have dismissed all the claims over which I have original jurisdiction, I do not find it appropriate to address this important question of state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would predominate over a single federal claim, especially after that federal claim is resolved.

Huerth v. Anthem Insurance Companies · filed 2017-06-26(c)

Here, were I to retain jurisdiction, Huerth’s six claims against MHC, which raise various questions of state law, would predominate over his single ERISA claim against the Plan Defendants. This is particularly so given the disposition of his one federal claim. Accordingly, given the nature and number of state law claims here, a remand of Huerth’s claims against MHC is the more appropriate course of action.

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

Jones v. Justice of the Peace Court Num · filed 2017-08-09

We also agree with the District Court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when state courts are better positioned to interpret their own statutes.

United States ex rel. Lisitza v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. · filed 2017-08-17(c)

But, the courts of those states are better positioned to address the nuances of their own statutes, to the extent preclusion doctrines would permit them to be re-asserted in state court. Therefore, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claimed violations of state false-claims statutes, too.

Section 1367(c)(4) treats forum manipulation, comity, fairness, judicial economy, and convenience as exceptional-circumstances considerations when deciding whether to remand state-law claims.

League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, et al. v. New Hampshire Secretary of State, et al. NH Democratic Party v. New H · filed 2017-09-03(c)(4)

To be sure, as the defendants point out, there is authority for the proposition that it is, see Mass. v. V & M Mgmt., Inc., 929 F.2d 830, 835-36 (1st Cir. 1991), along with comity, fairness, judicial economy, and convenience. Camelio, 137 F.3d at 672. These factors are best understood, however, not as the primary controlling considerations on a remand of state law claims, which are set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and analyzed above, but as “exceptional circumstances” under the last statutory factor, § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the core federal claim has been rejected on the merits.

Otte v. Kasich · filed 2017-09-07(c)

Section 1367 permits federal courts to entertain jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. But it does not require them to do so, least of all after the core federal claim already has been rejected on the merits.

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

2051 Lush Apartments, LLC v. City of Lauderhill · filed 2017-10-02(c)

Because the Ordinance is not facially unconstitutional, the District Court was correct in holding that Appellants’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim failed and in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, via 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), over Appellants’ remaining state-law claims.

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

Neuman v. State of Iowa · filed 2017-11-13(c)

We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over numerous state-law claims.

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

Grant v. White · filed 2017-11-20(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Grant v. Alperovich · filed 2017-11-20(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Grant’s remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C, § 1367(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim even if supplemental jurisdiction exists.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ripley · filed 2017-12-08(c)

However, even if supplemental jurisdiction existed, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Defendant Dean’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only when one of its listed circumstances applies.

Jones v. Wilson County, Tenn. · filed 2018-01-24(c)

As no exception applies, the district court did not, and could not, abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Jones’ PEPFA claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a local-law claim at the preliminary-injunction stage without dismissing that claim.

Classic Cab, Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia · filed 2018-01-24(c)

To be clear: Because the plaintiffs' D.C. APA claim arises on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court's refusal of supplemental jurisdiction over the claim does not demand that the claim be dismissed.

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

Repotski v. AMS Law PC · filed 2018-01-30(c)

Moreover, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Repotski may have alleged, i.e., malpractice.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a Tennessee governmental tort claim when the state legislature’s preference for state court adjudication supplies an exceptional circumstance.

P.G. v. Rutherford Cnty. Bd. of Educ. · filed 2018-05-29(c)

Accordingly, under § 1367(c), the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law negligence claim against RCBOE.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law tort claims, with dismissal of those claims without prejudice.

Scott v. Kelley · filed 2018-06-08

We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law tort claims, although we clarify that the dismissal of those claims is without prejudice.

After dismissing all federal claims early in litigation, a district court generally should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, but it may retain them based on factors such as convenience and fairness.

Steven Banks v. Gore · filed 2018-06-13(c)(3)

A district court does have discretion to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), but a court’s decision should be based on factors like convenience and fairness to the parties.

Section 1367(c)(3) requires the district court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim previously dismissed is reinstated.

Olick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2018-06-19(c)(3)

Because we hold that one of Olick’s federal claims can go forward, the District Court will wish to consider anew whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Mitchell v. Clackamas River Water · filed 2018-06-20(c)(3)

Because the district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s First Amendment and IIED claims, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims are likely to predominate over the remaining federal claim.

Dr. Toney Ford, Sr. v. Sessoms · filed 2018-06-21(c)(2)

But the judge reasonably concluded that the state-law claims were likely to predominate over the single straightforward federal claim that remained after screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2); Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981, 991 (7th Cir. 2008).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law dispute involving technical facts far removed from the federal claims.

Asante v. Cal. Dep't of Health Care Servs. · filed 2018-08-01(c)

In any case, even if the Court were to find jurisdiction over the equal protection claim, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the SPA 15-020 dispute, which is outside of the scope of relief requested in Plaintiffs' complaint. ... Moreover, the core facts for this claim will turn on the particular details of each of the 1,200 disputed payments, raising minute and technical issues that are far-removed from Plaintiffs' original allegations that Defendants' reimbursement plan, on a policy and systemic level, violated the Commerce Clause.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances, including parallel state probate proceedings concerning the same alleged conduct.

Singer v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. · filed 2018-08-15(c)(4)

Section 1367(c)(4) grants district courts the discretion to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim .. . if in exceptional circumstances, there are. . . compelling reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction.” ... To avoid that outcome, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rochelle’s claim against Nolan.

Section 1367(c)(3) lets a district court decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the claims within its original jurisdiction are gone.

Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc. · filed 2018-09-10(c)(3)

Under section 1367(c), when a “district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims. Now that only a single state-law claim remains, the district court can decide whether it wishes to exercise its discretion in the same way.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against defendants after dismissing the federal claims against them, even when federal claims remain against other defendants.

K. v. Spacapan · filed 2018-09-27

Having dismissed all federal claims against Defendants George, Collins, and Smith, all that remains against them is Kelly’s state law negligence claim. Because some of Kelly’s federal claims remain against other defendants, the Court would have to exercise pendent party jurisdiction over the negligence claim against the three defendants. The Court has discretion to refuse to exercise pendent jurisdiction, however, and accordingly declines to exercise that power.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Moon v. City of El Paso · filed 2018-10-15(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

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

Mitchell v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2018-12-21(c)(3)

Nevertheless, when only state law claims remain, after dismissal of the federal causes of action, the court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction.

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

Bush v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2019-03-13(c)

Under the circumstances of this case, we view the District Court’s dismissal language as encompassing a refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Bush’s state law claims, which was proper.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before discovery.

Brino v. JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership · filed 2019-03-21(c)

Because no federal claims remained in this suit, and because the District Court dismissed the state-law claims before any discovery had taken place, the Court did not abuse its discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining them.

Waters v. Madson · filed 2019-04-11(c)(3)

While a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim brought pendent to federal-question claims when the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it is not required to do so if declining jurisdiction would run contrary to “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The district court here chose to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims, and we may therefore review the district court’s decision on those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline jurisdiction over state-law claims that independently satisfy diversity jurisdiction.

BookXchange FL, LLC v. Book Runners, LLC · filed 2019-04-25(c)(3)

Because it does not appear to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy is $75,000 or less, and because the parties are citizens of different states, this court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and cannot relinquish jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. ... Book Runners’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction—which, properly construed, is a motion for this court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim—is therefore denied.

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

Woods v. Ricky Hays · filed 2019-06-04(c)

We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Woods’s state- law claims.

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

Watts v. Watts · filed 2019-06-14(c)(3)

Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-111 is not a claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction and this Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction for any state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3).

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

Brown v. Philbeck · filed 2019-07-01(c)

Where the court has dismissed with prejudice the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and where plaintiff’s state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims in this action grounded in alleged attorney malpractice, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 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, taking account of judicial economy and convenience.

BARONE v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY · filed 2019-07-22(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline jurisdiction over remaining claims after all federal claims have been dismissed from the action. ... I decline to exercise my jurisdiction over the state-law claims. This action is in its earliest stages; the federal claims, particularly post-amendment, were insubstantial; and judicial economy and convenience do not weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims when the statutory and common law factors favor remand after the federal claims are dismissed.

Ford v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 2019-07-29(c)

The second, third, and fourth statutory factors under § 1367(c) favor remand because Ford’s state-law claims predominate over any federal claims where no federal claims exist, see Enochs v. Lampasas Cty., 641 F.3d 155, 159 (5th Cir. 2011), and because all federal claims were dismissed when the Magistrate Judge granted Ford’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a DCHRA hostile work environment claim after dismissing the corresponding federal hostile work environment claim.

Rasheed v. Dc Public Schools · filed 2019-08-06(c)(3)

Conversely, this Court has concluded that Plaintiff has asserted no federal claim for hostile work environment, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s DCHRA claim for hostile work environment.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when no independent basis for jurisdiction exists.

S. v. Talladega County Board of Education · filed 2019-08-06(c)

In the absence of an independent basis for jurisdiction over T.S.’s state law claims against Mr. Bynum, the court will dismiss the claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction and the remaining claims raise markedly different questions of foreign law.

Force v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2019-07-31(c)

Therefore, even assuming that plaintiffs' foreign law claims form "part of the same case or controversy" as their federal claims, ... we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and dismiss that claim without prejudice.

Whitaker v. Mellinkoff · filed 2019-08-08(c)

Failure to respond as ordered will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissing that claim without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and the court may defer that choice while the viability of federal claims remains uncertain.

Stewart v. Amber · filed 2019-08-08(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Because it is not clear at this stage whether Plaintiff can state any federal claims, the Court will determine at a later time whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff seeks to raise.

Section 1367(c)(4) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over permissive counterclaims when compelling reasons favor their dismissal from the federal action.

Poole v. Dhiru Hospitality, LLC · filed 2019-08-15(c)(4)

To determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court considers whether: (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. Id. § 1367(c). ... The Court further agrees that, to the extent they may be permissive counterclaims, they should be dismissed. ... Thus, Defendant’s counterclaims, which do not directly relate to Plaintiff’s wage claims and instead would act as set-offs, should be dismissed.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Pier v. Civic Center Inn and Suites · filed 2019-08-26(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when their nature and related pending state-court cases favor remand.

Koch v. Kruml · filed 2019-08-28(c)

Considering the nature of Koch’s claims and the fact that several related cases are currently pending in state court, this Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and remanded this case back to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; considering that option is premature while the status of remaining federal claims is unknown.

Range, Jr. v. 535 Broadway Group LLC · filed 2019-09-03(c)(3)

This Court notes from the outset that because this is only a partial motion, and the status of Range’s remaining accessibility allegations is unknown, any consideration of whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction is premature.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline to address state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Legare v. Cryer · filed 2019-09-04

Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to screen Plaintiff's purported state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed and a remaining state law issue is unsettled.

Stewart v. Warren County Board of Commissioners · filed 2019-09-04(c)(1), (c)(3)

When a Court has dismissed the federal claims in a case, it may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would substantially predominate over the remaining federal claims.

Chandler v. Chartwell Holdings, Inc., et al. · filed 2019-09-13(c)(2)

Moreover, litigation of such claims in this action would require resolution of evidentiary issues and issues of state law that would “substantially predominate” over the claims remaining in this action.

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

Burns v. Femiani · filed 2019-09-13(c)

Finally, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Lopez v. Admiral Theatre, Inc. · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)

Thus the Court's discretion to relinquish jurisdiction under section 1367(c)(3) was never triggered.

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

Principia Partners LLC v. Swap Financial Group, LLC · filed 2019-09-26(c)

Here, both the second and third categories of § 1367(c) are met. The Court has dismissed the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, and the state law causes of action arising from Defendant’s failure to report and remit revenue from undisclosed customers predominate over the sole federal claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the original claims are resolved and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor a state forum.

First Dakota National Bank v. Ruba · filed 2019-09-30(c)

In this case, it does not serve the interests of justice for this Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the possible fraud claim against Jack Grubb and the minority oppression claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but a state-law claim may independently qualify for diversity jurisdiction.

Hooper v. Petsmart, Inc. · filed 2019-09-30(c)

However, while it is true that “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim … if … the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), defendant’s argument misses one ... key point: the SAC expressly alleges both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The Court would have original jurisdiction over the defamation claim if diversity jurisdiction exists.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims leave the case, with the case’s early stage and comity favoring dismissal without prejudice.

Schreiber v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation · filed 2019-10-09(c)(3)

The factors in this case clearly militate in favor of dismissal. Discovery has not commenced, and the case is still in its earliest stages. Principles of comity suggest that Michigan courts should adjudicate cases arising entirely from Michigan statutory and common law. The Court will dismiss Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, IX and X without prejudice so that state courts can determine the arbitrability of the state law causes of action.

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

Bey v. Gascon · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

As to Bey’s state law claims against Lee and Brenneman for fraud, malicious abuse of ... process, libel and slander, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them in light of the ... dismissal of Bey’s federal claims.

Under section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to justify retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and may decline jurisdiction if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately.

Kwon v. Soleimani · filed 2019-10-16(c)

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within ten days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, California Disabled Persons Act claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and negligence claim and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims before trial when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

Soldan 358345 v. Washington · filed 2019-10-17(c)(3)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims asserting a violation of state law will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to avoid jury confusion.

Scott v. Inter-Con Security Systems Inc · filed 2019-10-23(c)(4)

Accordingly, the parties in this matter appear to be nondiverse, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Urban v. Mohr · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)

Here, all plaintiff’s federal claims have been dismissed, and there are no allegations in the Complaint that would support another basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction Claims Four, Five, Six, and Seven, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to justify supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim in light of fairness, comity, and California’s measures to curb abusive disability-access litigation.

Williams v. Johnston · filed 2019-10-25(c)

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

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice after disposing of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Warren v. Coosa Board of Education · filed 2019-10-29(c)(3)

Because the court will enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendants on all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court WILL DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Warren’s state law defamation claim and WILL DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ramirez v. Garcia · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

Neither have the parties asserted any other basis for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction absent the claims against the United States. Thus, the Court GIVES NOTICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) of its intent to REMAND this action to the 92nd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, the court from which it was removed.

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

The Depot, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc. · filed 2019-10-30(c)

Even if that were not the case, this Court would, as Judge Christensen has, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when the federal claims are extinguished.

Delaney v. Jamaldeen · filed 2019-11-04(c)(3)

Because Delaney’s federal claims against Dr. Jamaludeen will be extinguished through this Order, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Delaney’s remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when no federal claim supporting original jurisdiction remains.

SCHUTT v. WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES · filed 2019-11-04(c)(3)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Mr. Schutt’s potential state law negligence claim because there is no companion federal constitutional claim upon which to base original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

COLEMAN v. CORIZON MEDICAL · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s constitutional claims under section 1983 will be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

FERRER v. VON PIER · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any intended state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law medical-negligence claim after dismissing the federal claims and to dismiss the state-law claim without prejudice.

Stanish v. State of Ohio/Medina County · filed 2019-11-06

To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting a state law claim for medical negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and that claim is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims without prejudice after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Curry v. Thrower · filed 2019-11-08(c)(3)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal claims are due to be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s state law claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. · filed 2019-11-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state any cognizable federal claim.

(PC) Steward v. Igbinosa · filed 2019-12-02(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, it is recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

After dismissing the federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims given the early stage of the proceedings and related foreclosure proceedings pending in state court.

Igarashi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2019-12-06(c)

Thus, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims given the early stage of these proceedings and the ongoing foreclosure proceedings related to Plaintiffs’ state law claims that are pending in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

WARREN v. LEHIGH COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS · filed 2019-12-06(c)(3)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Warren’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of the proceedings.

Ladd v. Jamie Rose Klements DVM, LLC · filed 2019-12-16(c)(3)

Because the Court finds that all federal claims herein should be dismissed at this early stage of the proceedings, it will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits discretionary relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims providing original jurisdiction have been dismissed, with a presumption favoring relinquishment before trial.

Resnick v. Schwartz · filed 2019-12-27(c)(3)

This presumption is expressed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which provides for the discretionary relinquishment of jurisdiction over state claims when the claims providing original jurisdiction have been dismissed. Here, the ERISA claims created federal-question jurisdiction, and neither party has asserted diversity jurisdiction. Given that there is no basis for jurisdiction without the ERISA claims, there is no good reason to hang onto the state law claims. This Court thus relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when they raise a novel or complex state-law issue, substantially predominate, and all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Avelar v. Youth and Family Enrichment Services · filed 2010-02-04(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)

This case raises “a novel or complex issue of State law,” the state law claims “substantially predominate[] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,” and “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)(2) & (3). Under these circumstances, we conclude that relinquishment of federal court jurisdiction is warranted, and remand with instructions that the district court vacate its judgment and dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims present novel or complex issues, predominate over federal claims, or remain after all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed; those circumstances can require remand.

Arrington v. City of Raleigh · filed 2010-03-05(c)

No doubt, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the district court had the discretion to make that election. But both the plain text of § 1367(c) as well as our precedents make clear that in this instance, that discretion should have been exercised to decline jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) favors declining supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining state-law claims raise novel or complex issues.

Knatt v. Hospital Svc District No. 1, et · filed 2010-04-12(c)

In this case, section 1367’s first and third factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction. In fact, when a district court eliminates all federal claims before trial—as the district court did in this case—the “general rule” is that it should then decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) favors declining supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining state-law claims raise novel or complex issues and all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Knatt v. Hospital Service District No. 1 · filed 2010-04-12(c)

In this case, section 1367’s first and third factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction.

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

Beachum v. AWISCO New York · filed 2011-03-16(c)(1), (c)(3)

In this ease, Plaintiffs NYCHRL claims are the only remaining claims after the Court dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, and they raise novel and complex issues of state law. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs NYCHRL claims.

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

Merrifield v. COUNTY COM'RS FOR COUNTY OF SANTA FE · filed 2011-07-25(c)(1), (c)(3)

Two of the circumstances listed in § 1367(c) require declination of jurisdiction in this case. First, the principal issue in the state-law claim—the standard of review that the hearing officer should have applied—is “a novel . . . issue of State law.” ... Second, § 1367(c)(3) applies because we have affirmed the dismissal of the claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction; indeed these claims had been dismissed before the district court finally decided the state-law claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining state claims raise novel and complex questions of state law.

Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling · filed 2011-08-15(c)(1), (c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims, both because the court had dismissed all of the federal claims that formed the basis of its original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and because the remaining claims addressed novel and complex questions of state law best answered by state courts. See id. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel or complex state-law issues and may substantially predominate over federal claims.

Rollins v. ALABAMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM · filed 2011-08-26(c)(1), (2)

The court concludes, therefore, that the state law claims raise novel and complex issues of state law which may substantially predominate over the federal civil rights claims in the case. Therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (2).

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

Washington v. Albright · filed 2011-09-30(c)(1) & (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 Washington or dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) & (3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Washington’s claims pursuant to Alabama law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when all federal claims are dismissed and the state-law issue is novel and complex.

United States v. Eme Homer City Generation L.P. · filed 2011-10-12(c)

To the extent Plaintiffs contend that § 4009.3 provides an independent cause of action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The Court has concluded that all federal claims must be dismissed, and this would present a novel and complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when federal claims remain and the state-law issue is not sufficiently novel or complex to warrant declining jurisdiction.

Camm v. Scott · filed 2011-11-30(c)

Because the Court has not dismissed all of the Federal claims, the Court declines to withhold supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(3). Additionally, the Court is not persuaded that the issue at hand is such a novel or complex issue of State law that it would be inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when a federal claim remains, the state claims are not sufficiently novel, complex, or predominant, and no exceptional circumstances exist.

Romero v. City of New York · filed 2012-03-17(c)

Here, clauses (1), (2), and (3) do not apply as plaintiffs’ state law claims are not so novel or complex to justify declining jurisdiction and those claims do not predominate over the sole remaining federal Section 1983 claim against Mr. Benavides, over which this court has original jurisdiction. Finally, the court does not find that this case presents exceptional or compelling circumstances warranting that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Clean Harbors, Inc. v. CBS Corp. · filed 2012-06-26(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court has discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over, a state-law claim if it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when they present no novel or complex state-law issue, the federal claims remain pending, and the state claims do not predominate.

Pacheco v. St. Luke's Emergency Associates, P.C. · filed 2012-07-20(c)

Pacheco’s claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law, the FLSA claims have not been dismissed, and since fundamentally the federal claims cover the same factual scenario as the state claims, the state claims do not “predominate” over the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) allow a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims raise novel state law issues or the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Lacasa v. Townsley · filed 2012-07-25(c)(1), (c)(3)

Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) to the instant facts, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims contained in Count I because they present novel issues of state law that are better left to the state courts to decide. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to the instant facts, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims contained in Count I now that the Court has dismissed the claim over which it purportedly had original jurisdiction.

When all original-jurisdiction claims are resolved and the remaining state-law claims raise novel or complex issues, § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3) support reconsidering the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc. · filed 2012-10-23(c)(1), (c)(3)

In doing so, we note in particular that we have now dis- posed of “all claims over which [the District Court] has origi- nal jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without reaching the probable cause question that overlaps with the state law claims. Moreover, the remaining state law claims “raise[ sev- eral] novel or complex issue[s] of State law” not recognized by the District Court Id. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it is the only claim remaining or presents a novel question of state law.

CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. Village of Plainfield · filed 2013-07-30(c)

Either the discovery rule has tolled the running of the limitation period in Section 1 l-13-25(a) and the state law claim is the only remaining claim, or the case raises a novel question of State law — whether the discovery rule applies to the limitation period in Section 11-13-25(a). In either case, it is appropriate for the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count II and dismiss it without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Kimbrough v. Cincinnati Ass'n for Blind · filed 2013-12-10(c)(1), (c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) states that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim 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.” Both of these factors apply here; a violation of state public policy is a evolving and complex issue of Ohio law, and the Court has dismissed all of Kimbrough’s federal claims. For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to decline jurisdiction over Count 5 of Kimbrough’s complaint. That claim is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss a supplemental state-law claim without prejudice when it raises a novel issue of state law and all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Dailey v. Medlock · filed 2014-01-13(c)

Both of these criteria apply, and we conclude that the silent fraud claim should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when no claim within its original jurisdiction remains or the state law claim raises novel or complex issues of state law.

Smith v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2014-05-09(c)

A district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where: (1) there are no longer any claims over which the court has original jurisdiction; or (2) the claim raises novel or complex issues of State law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the only claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction is no longer pending. And Defendant’s breach of contract claim raises novel and complex issues of Florida law, including issues related to the interpretation of contracts. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s breach of contract claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims are gone and the remaining state-law claims present novel or complex issues, after weighing case-specific factors such as judicial resources and the risk of relitigation.

Glenn Alphonse, Jr. v. Arch Bay Holdings, L.L.C. · filed 2015-07-13(c)

Given the presence of novel and complex issues of state law in this case, as well as Alphonse’s failure to argue or demonstrate that issues relating to resource expenditures or re-litigation weighed in favor of maintaining the case in the federal forum, the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a nonfederal claim raises a novel or complex state law issue or substantially predominates over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Cromeartie v. Rcm of Washington, Inc. · filed 2015-08-05(c)

Moreover, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or “substantially predominates over the . . . claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel local-law claim that is factually and legally distinct from the federal claims.

Harrell v. City of New York · filed 2015-09-30(c)

Because that claim raises a novel issue of City law and is factually and legally distinct from the constitutional seizure and due process claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Five.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim presenting a novel question of local law and dismiss it without prejudice.

Mahon v. Anesthesia Business Consultants, LLC · filed 2016-04-13(c)(1)

Because Mr. Mahon’s District of Columbia statutory claims present a novel question of local law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims and will dismiss them without prejudice so that Mr. Mahon, if he chooses, can bring them before a District of Columbia court for adjudication on the merits.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claim when those claims raise novel issues of state law.

Kando v. Rhode Island State Board of Elections · filed 2017-06-05(c)

The Court declines to exercise discretion supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Kando’s remaining state law claims. Based on the allegations in his complaint, the Court finds that the claims raise novel issues of state law, specifically whether the Rhode Island Constitution allows a private right of action and how to calculate the statute of limitations under the Rhode Island Open Meetings Act.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law counterclaims when they raise no novel state-law issue, do not predominate over federal claims, and present no exceptional circumstances counseling against jurisdiction.

Ayub v. Picco · filed 2018-03-13(c)

Finally, the court finds that none of the reasons to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), apply here. Defendants’ counterclaims do not raise novel issues of state law and do not predominate over the federal claims; nor are there exceptional circumstances present that counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) requires the district court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining claims appear to raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Ortiz v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. (In Re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig.) · filed 2018-06-22(c)

Here, this court has affirmed the dismissals of this case’s federal claims. And this case appears to raise “novel or complex” issues of the laws of multiple states. This court remands to the district court to analyze under § 1367(c) whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

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

Wai Man Tom v. Hospitality Ventures LLC · filed 2018-12-18(c)

In this manner, declining jurisdiction is appropriate both due to dismissal of all federal claims as well as the novel issue of state law arising from interpretation of the NCWHA.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel or complex issues of state law, including after the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

ANDERSON v. CREWS · filed 2019-06-16(c)

Even when federal claims remain pending, a federal court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in limited circumstances, including when “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. And when the federal claims that give rise to supplemental jurisdiction are dismissed prior to trial, the district court has discretion to dismiss even routine state-law claims. ... After considering all the relevant factors, see, e.g., Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296; L.A. Draper, 735 F.2d at 428, I conclude that the easily resolved state-law claims against the individual defendants should be decided here, but that the closer issues presented by the state-law claims against the sheriff should be remanded for a decision in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when local claims predominate over federal claims and raise novel and complex local law questions.

Umc Development, LLC v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-08-13(c)

Even if the doctrine of issue preclusion did not bar consideration of the Developers’ D.C. claims, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. First, as the previously assigned judge explained when she granted the Developers’ original motion to remand, the D.C. claims predominate over the federal claims. ... Second, the state law questions are novel and complex.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise novel or complex issues, substantially predominate, remain after dismissal of all original-jurisdiction claims, or present other compelling reasons.

Outley v. Batiste · filed 2019-08-23(c)

To the extent that Plaintiff’s allegations invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this court over potential state law claims, a district court may decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if a plaintiff’s state law claims raise novel or complex issues of state law, if the claims substantially predominate over the claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, or for other compelling reasons.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims raising novel or complex state-law issues when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, particularly at an early stage of proceedings.

Does 1 through 10 v. Haaland · filed 2019-11-05(c)(1), (3)

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” or if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3). These motions raise unique issues of state law, including application of the Kentucky long-arm statute and state libel law. Further, given the early stage of the proceedings, these matters are better left to the state court where this Court no longer has any federal issues before it.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims when their federal claims have been dismissed as time-barred.

Plants v. U S Pizza Company Inc · filed 2020-01-03(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these plaintiffs’ state law claims since they have no remaining federal claims in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Coleman-Bey v. Childrens Aid Society · filed 2020-01-06(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the only federal claim is dismissed early in the proceedings.

Smith v. McKesson Medical Surgical Inc · filed 2020-01-09(c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Smith’s only federal law claim at this early juncture, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

LEWIS v. PAONE · filed 2020-01-10(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to raise state law claims against these Defendants, the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claims fail to state a plausible claim and are dismissed before trial.

Phillips v. Austin Police Department · filed 2020-01-10(c)(3)

Because the complaint fails to state any plausible Bivens claims against the federal defendants and fails to state any plausible § 1983 claims against the Oklahoma defendants, the Court sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Phillips’ related state-law claims against those defendants.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when they raise complex state-law issues and all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

ALLEN v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-01-10(c)(1), (c)(3)

These claims raise complex issues of state law. For this reason and because all claims over which this court has original jurisdiction have been resolved against the plaintiff, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over these remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (3). They will be dismissed without prejudice.

A court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over cognizable state law claims when no actionable federal claims remain.

Tamayo v. City of Glendale · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

Finally, without any actionable federal claims to address, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any cognizable state law claims Plaintiff may have.

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

Burke v. Vision Government Solutions, Inc. · filed 2020-01-15(c)(3)

Having determined that all federal claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction should be dismissed, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under Connecticut law.

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

Hill v. The City of New York · filed 2020-01-15(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Under § 1367(c), comity warrants declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing a state-law claim without prejudice when all federal claims are gone and the remaining claim presents a novel issue of state law.

Birdwell v. Glanz · filed 2020-01-23(c)

Because Mr. Birdwell does not appeal the grant of summary judgment on the federal causes of action, all of the claims triggering original jurisdiction are gone. All that’s left is an undecided issue of state law, involving interpretation of an assumption stated in a footnote to a recent opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Given the novelty of this issue, we conclude that the interest in comity predominates and should have led the district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim against Armor.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint states no viable federal claim.

Lacy v. Jones · filed 2020-01-27(c)(3)

Because Mr. Lacy’s complaint does not state any claims grounded in federal law, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state law claims against Mr. Love.

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

Calvino v. Mainchance · filed 2020-01-27(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits remand of a remaining state-law claim after all federal claims are dismissed when the state-law claim predominates and fairness, judicial economy, and comity favor resolution in state court.

Yoo v. BMW Manufacturing Co. LLC · filed 2020-01-27(c)

Accordingly, having disposed of all Plaintiff’s federal claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim for workers’ compensation retaliation and that cause of action will thus be remanded to the state court.

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

Chavez v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Chaves · filed 2020-01-31(c)(3)

Because none of Plaintiff’s federal law claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Hobbs v. Evans · filed 2020-02-03(c)

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Klaus v. County of Macoupin · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)

Because all federal claims are being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s supplemental state law wage discrimination claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed at an early stage of litigation.

IPPOLITO v. CARPENITO · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)

Here, at the earliest stage of the proceedings, the Court is dismissing Plaintiff's federal CVRA claims, which provided the Court with federal question jurisdiction. As a result, the Court exercises its discretion pursuant to Section 1367(c) and declines supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after summary judgment disposes of the federal claim.

McKissack 757027 v. Van Buren County Sheriffs Department · filed 2020-02-11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants DeLaRosa and Ampey’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s federal law claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the state law claims as to Defendants DeLaRosa and Ampey are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

McNatt v. Bush · filed 2020-02-12(c)(3)

Indeed, a District Court is well within its discretion to dismiss state law claims once the basis for original federal court jurisdiction no longer exists.

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

Taylor v. District Attorney Philadelphia · filed 2020-02-14(c)

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to remand a removed case to state court.

Kemper v. Al Nienhuis · filed 2020-02-14(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where it has dismissed all the underlying federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, with only a state-law claim remaining in this case, the Court finds in its discretion that retaining jurisdiction over this matter would be inappropriate. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Hernando County, Florida.

Section 1367(c) permits discretionary dismissal of state-law claims without prejudice after the federal claims are dismissed when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Flessner 703698 v. People of the State of Michigan · filed 2020-02-14(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed, the remaining state-law claim raises unsettled questions of state law, and no unusual circumstances justify retaining jurisdiction.

Lieberman, Brett v. Portage County · filed 2020-02-21(c)(1), (c)(3)

The court will dismiss Lieberman’s state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) because the court has dismissed all the federal claims and neither side has identified a reason for retaining jurisdiction over the state-law claim. ... Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” See Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2007). Because all the federal questions have been resolved and Lieberman’s WESCL claim raises unsettled questions of state law, the court will dismiss Lieberman’s state-law claims without prejudice to his refiling them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Walczak v. Pratt & Whitney · filed 2020-02-21(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Mr. Walczak’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, and dismisses them for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act disability claims out of deference to California’s heightened pleading requirements and its interest in interpreting its disability laws.

Schutza v. Union City Investments LLC · filed 2020-02-25(c)(4)

As to Defendants’ first argument, the Court agrees and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction out of deference to California’s heightened pleading requirements for disability lawsuits, and in the interest of comity, as California courts should interpret the state’s disability laws.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

STICKILY v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER · filed 2020-02-28(c)(3)

When “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the district court has the express authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims. ... As a result, the Court is well within its right to refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim and dismiss it without prejudice after dismissing the sole claim supporting original jurisdiction.

Feder v. SB2, Inc. · filed 2020-03-02(c)(3)

However, as the Court finds that her FDCPA claim, the sole source of original jurisdiction, is untimely and should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim and dismisses it without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Budd v. Summit Pointe · filed 2020-03-04(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law defamation claim may be declined when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Tafoya v. City of Hanford · filed 2020-03-06(a)

Even if Plaintiff could not meet the defamation-plus standard but was able to demonstrate ... defamation under California law, the Court would also decline to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction over such state claim because Plaintiff failed to state a separate cognizable federal ... claim, as explained above.