28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Lopez v. Housing Solutions of the Southwest · filed 2020-03-06(c)

The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim brought against Colorado and CCRD under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-121, and that claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Barbee v. Anderson · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)

The court has determined that Barbee’s federal claims must be dismissed; thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Barbee’s state law assault and battery claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Blocktree Properties LLC v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County Washington · filed 2020-03-12(c)(3)

Because the Court dismissed the claims over which it had an ... independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, and because it did so early in the ... litigation, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ ... remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims, where limitations remain tolled, few judicial resources have been spent on the state claims, and comity favors state-court adjudication.

KREILEIN v. LEMMON · filed 2020-03-12(c)(3)

When the claim over which a federal court had original jurisdiction is dismissed, the Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. ... For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Kreliein’s state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when any one of its statutory factors is satisfied.

James v. City of Greenville · filed 2020-03-12(c)

Thus, this court concludes that multiple § 1367(c) factors support declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case, even though only one of them is required in order to do so. This court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims, and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining claim raises a novel issue of state law.

Exclusively Cats Veterinary Hospital, P.C. v. M/A/R/C Research, LLC · filed 2020-03-16(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because Plaintiff has no remaining federal claim and because Plaintiff raises a novel issue of state law, the court will not continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for statutory conversion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when all federal claims have been dismissed at the pleading stage.

United States v. MEDCOM CAROLINAS INC. · filed 2020-03-16(c)(3)

Since this matter has not progressed past the motion-to- dismiss stage and only a state law claim remains, the court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count Five. Count Five will therefore be dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over proposed state-law claims when the proposed federal claim is not viable.

BUNTING v. NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER · filed 2020-03-16(c)(3)

But because Plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim is not viable, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff fails to state any cognizable federal claim.

Camirand v. Jones · filed 2020-03-17(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s putative state law claim at this juncture.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a complex state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims before trial when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal without prejudice.

Parker v. Consolidated Pipe & Supply Company Inc · filed 2020-03-18(c)(1), (c)(3)

Accordingly, the balance of factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction, and this court exercises its discretion to dismiss plaintiffs state claim, without prejudice.

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

Doe MC-15 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-03-18(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal of state-law claims without prejudice to maintain consistency with prior orders declining supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Childers v. General Motors Company LLC · filed 2020-03-23(c)

To maintain consistency with Judge Edmunds’ orders, the Court shall also dismiss without prejudice plaintiff’s ELCRA claims in 20-10081. ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s state-law claims (Count I) in 20-10081 are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when all federal claims are dismissed before trial and stops the limitations clock for the remaining state-law claims during the federal case and for thirty days after dismissal.

AKERS v. TIM JUNGBLUT TRUCKING, INC. · filed 2020-03-25(c)(3), (d)

All Plaintiffs’ federal-law claims are dismissed by this Entry, and “the general rule is that, when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district court should re- linquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather than resolving them on the merits.” Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 727 (7th Cir. 1998); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise sup- plemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims. Pursuant to § 1367(d), the limitations periods for those state-law claims have been tolled—i.e., the limitations clock has been stopped—for the pendency of this case and shall be tolled for an additional thirty days from this Entry, so Plaintiffs will not be unduly prejudiced by dismissal.

Consideration of whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state wage claims may be premature at the pleading-amendment stage when mediation of the federal wage claims could affect jurisdiction over the state claims.

Hodapp v. Regions Bank · filed 2020-03-25(a)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that it is premature for the Court to entertain supplemental jurisdiction issues at this stage, particularly in light of the above discussion regarding mediation. At the outset, it appears that the FLSA claims and the state law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact such that Plaintiffs would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one proceeding.

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.

Villarreal v. Winzer · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court is dismissing all of plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims he may have raised in this lawsuit.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

McCabe v. Fairfax County Animal Shelter · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the remaining state law claims without prejudice after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal employment-related claims while federal discrimination claims proceed.

Hardmon v. Coleman · filed 2020-03-31

Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Record Document 29] is GRANTED as to all of Plaintiff’s claims other than those related to Title VII and/or workplace discrimination. Those claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act claims because the preference for their resolution in state courts is a compelling reason to decline jurisdiction.

Meadows v. Putnam County, Tennessee · filed 2020-03-31(c)(4)

A district court may however decline supplemental jurisdiction “in exceptional circumstances” where “there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The TFTLA’s preference for resolution in state courts is a compelling reason and the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted.

Shunn v. Benson · filed 2020-04-02(c)(3)

Moreover, because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims in any event. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims upon dismissal of the complaint.

Avent v. Unknown Charity Ass. Att. Generals · filed 2020-04-06(c)

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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Harvey v. Tx. Gov. Gregg Abbott · filed 2020-04-07(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over a state law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Because the Court is dismissing for want of jurisdiction all of plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by plaintiff.

A court cannot exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the complaint when no amended complaint has been filed.

Pederson v. Panchamukhi · filed 2020-04-07

Until an amended complaint is filed, the Court has nothing to assert — or decline to assert— supplemental jurisdiction over.

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

Abbott v. United States · filed 2020-04-10(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed in this case, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the remaining claims that are based on Alaska state law.57 Accordingly, the remaining claims against Wildflower Court are REMANDED to the Superior Court for the State of Alaska.

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 over which it had original jurisdiction.

Peterson v. Williams · filed 2020-04-15(c)(3)

However, under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Having granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismisses Counts Four and Five without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

Harmon v. Lux · filed 2020-04-15(c)

Assuming Harmon has a viable state common law negligence claim against Lux, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and dismisses any state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 generally calls for relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed before trial when substantial judicial resources have not been expended, state-court refiling remains available, and the outcome of the state claim is not clearly apparent.

Szplett v. Kenco Logistic Services, LLC · filed 2020-04-22(c)(3)

Substantial judicial resources have not yet been committed to this claim, Illinois law provides Szplett one year to refile the claim in state court if its limitations period expired while the case was pending here, see Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 505, 515 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 735 ILCS 5/13-217), and—by contrast to Szplett’s other state law claims—it is not clearly apparent whether his tortious interference claim against the individual defendants should be dismissed. Accordingly, the court relinquishes its supplemental jurisdiction over that portion of his tortious interference claim.

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

F.P. Development, LLC v. Canton Township of Canton Michigan · filed 2020-04-23(c)(3)

Having ruled on all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Township’s Counter-Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims should not be exercised when no viable federal claim remains.

Duhart v. Clement · filed 2020-04-24

Based upon the lack of any federal claim, pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 should not be exercised, even if this Court could conceive of any state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when they present a novel state-law issue and all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

JONES v. CITY PLAZA, LLC · filed 2020-04-29(c)(1), (c)(3)

Having dismissed the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction and facing a novel issue of state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not provide a ground to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims have not been dismissed.

John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services1 · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

Counts I, II, and III, however, have not been dismissed. Therefore, the Commissioner does not provide grounds to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction on the ground that the federal claims were dismissed when those claims remain pending.

Doe v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-01(c)(3)

Counts I, II, and III, however, have not been dismissed. Therefore, the Commissioner does not provide grounds to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and order the plaintiff to show cause before deciding.

Dorsey v. Royal California, LLC · filed 2020-05-04(c)

The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim and other state law claims for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when recent state legislation shows a special state interest in those claims.

Whitaker v. GZHB LLC · filed 2020-05-04(c)(4)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of California’s recent legislation regulating the filing of claims under California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. which evidences a special state interest in such cases.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction for its listed reasons and permits a court to seek a response before deciding whether to do so.

Bouyer v. Regency Centers, L.P. · filed 2020-05-04(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and to require the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise that jurisdiction.

Mister Bailey v. Roe · filed 2020-05-07(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Myers v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc. · filed 2020-05-07(c)

The Court orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Whitaker v. 7707 Sunset, Inc. · filed 2020-05-11(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).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and to decline it if the response is untimely or inadequate.

Sung Choi v. Gri Park Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-05-11(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 and claims for negligence and violations of California’s Disabled Persons Act and Unfair Competition Law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... 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 and other state law claims and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

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

Crown Castle NG East LLC v. The Town of Oyster Bay · filed 2020-05-12(c)

Rather, the Report recommends that this Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and dismiss the counterclaims without prejudice, and the Court accepts that recommendation.

Section 1367(c)(3)–(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after resolving the federal claims when federal policy and judicial economy favor doing so.

Gilliard v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-05-13(c)(3)–(4)

The Court finds that there are no remaining underlying issues of federal policy and judicial economy will not be served by keeping this action in federal court. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)–(4).

Section 1367(c)(1)–(2) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related contract crossclaim when the state-law issues are routine and do not raise the federalism concerns behind the predominance inquiry.

Keralink International, Inc. v. Stradis Healthcare, LLC · filed 2020-05-14(c)(1)–(2)

Although Geri-Care describes a number of state law issues that the court would have to address if it were to exercise jurisdiction over the claim, none of them appear “novel,” nor do they implicate the kinds of federalism concerns at the core of the “predominates over” inquiry. ... The court is thus not persuaded that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the crossclaim.

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

Harmon v. Toyota · filed 2020-05-15(c)

Assuming Harmon has a viable state common law claim against Venice Toyota, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and dismisses any state law claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate and no federal claims remain.

Hill v. 1500 Barton Springs, Inc. · filed 2020-05-18(c)

The Court believes that the proper exercise of its discretion here, weighing both statutory and common law factors, is not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Hills’ state law claims. First, the Hills’ state law DTPA and fraud claims substantially predominate over the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act claim, the one claim over which the district court had original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Second, no federal claims remain in the case. Id.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law medical malpractice and negligence claims.

Bradley v. Kallas · filed 2020-05-27

Plaintiff asserts medical malpractice and negligence claims against Dr. Kallas. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, particularly when the remaining claims require interpreting state law.

Torres v. Harris · filed 2020-05-29(c)(1), (c)(3)

Because Plaintiff's remaining claim concerns interpretations of Pennsylvania law, and the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal claims remain pending and related state court proceedings do not present exceptional circumstances.

Petconnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas · filed 2020-06-01(c)

Additionally, the Court has declined to dismiss the Lanham Act claims at this time, and the existence of related proceedings in state court do not constitute “exceptional circumstances” justifying the denial of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Morris v. Canyon County · filed 2020-06-01(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Heras v. Van Der Laan · filed 2020-06-03(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when their amount in controversy falls far below the jurisdictional limit.

Grundy v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

The Court declines to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at issue in this case where the remaining amount in controversy falls far below the jurisdictional limit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when an underlying federal claim remains pending.

Liu v. Tangney · filed 2020-06-05(c)

Additionally, the Court does not see any reason to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the present circumstances, particularly because Defendant Tangney has not moved to dismiss the federal claim that Plaintiff brought against him. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (noting that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for a number of reasons—most relevant to the case at bar, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

Section 1367 permits a court with cognizable federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim whose legal basis and private right of action have not been identified.

(PC) Ruiz v. Orozco · filed 2020-06-09

Although the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. ... Plaintiff has not identified the statute, rule, or regulation at issue, or informed the court whether a private right of action exists upon which he can proceed. Therefore, the court recommends declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this alleged claim.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and to require the plaintiff to show cause why it should do so.

Perri v. Empire Commercial Center, LLC · filed 2020-06-11(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A district court’s discretion to remand a claim under § 1367(c) depends on one of that subsection’s listed criteria being met.

Hallmark Care Services, Inc. v. Superior Court · filed 2020-06-17(c)

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to remand Hallmark’s vacatur claim. The district court had supplemental jurisdiction over the claim and none of the § 1367(c) criteria triggered the district court’s discretion to remand.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Garcia v. Hoey · filed 2020-06-17(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).

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

Coleman v. The State of Officer John Doe · filed 2020-06-17(c)

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 dismissal of supplemental state-law claims when the federal claim fails.

Black Bear Sports Group, Inc. v. Amateur Hockey Association of · filed 2020-06-22(c)(3)

But it invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. §1367, not the diversity jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. §1332. Because the federal claim fails, any state- law claims belong in state court. See §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to ask a plaintiff to show cause before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Bouyer v. Norcal Hospitality Inc. · filed 2020-06-30(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).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and to require a showing on whether it should exercise that jurisdiction.

Grigsby v. Hollywood Vermont Residences LLC · filed 2020-07-02(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim, taking account of the nature of the claim and the character of the governing state law.

Rutherford v. Vemanti Capital Partners LLC · filed 2020-07-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Truong v. Brea, LLC · filed 2020-07-02(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 a state-law claim even when § 1367(a) supplies jurisdiction over it.

Bouyer v. Bamford · filed 2020-07-02(c)

The sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c).

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

SUSAN LEE v. SARI DEVELOPMENT, INC · filed 2020-07-08(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 state law claims for the reasons it lists.

Davidson v. SMRT RB LLC · filed 2020-07-08(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would substantially predominate over federal claims and raise novel, complex issues of state law.

Davis v. Wayne County Election Commission · filed 2020-07-08(c)

The state-law claims also raise novel and complex issues of state law. Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over any state-law claims in this action.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over possible state-law claims while allowing federal claims to proceed.

Lee v. James · filed 2020-07-09

And the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims alleged by Plaintiff that may or may not be sufficiently pleaded regarding this allegation against M. Bones or the actions defendants took pertaining to the evidence in Plaintiff’s case.

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

Kim v. The Source at Beach, LLC · filed 2020-07-17(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 state law claims that require wholly different analyses from the remaining federal claim.

Johnson v. Davis · filed 2020-07-20(c)

In the instant case, any state law claims Plaintiff may have are subject to wholly different analyses than the remaining federal claim; therefore, it is further recommended that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction be declined.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists over a related state-law claim.

Rutherford v. TWA-Anaheim Limited Partnership · filed 2020-07-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Rutherford v. Station Land Investors, LLC · filed 2020-07-21(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

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

Lopez v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC · filed 2020-07-21(c)

With respect first, having dismissed Lopez’s only federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his other claims. ... Moreover, the claims raise “novel” issues of state and local law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, Lopez’s claims under state and local law are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing the only federal claim, particularly when the case is at an early stage and the remaining claims raise novel issues of local law.

Mendez v. Papa John's USA, Inc. · filed 2020-07-21(c)

Moreover, the claims raise “novel” issues of state and local law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, Mendez’s claims under state and local law are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when filing in federal court may evade state-law restrictions.

Rutherford v. FVDD, LLC · filed 2020-07-22(c)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Rutherford v. Yorba Linda L.P. · filed 2020-07-22(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Barekat v. Hawaii Mariposa Ventures · filed 2020-07-22(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Demotte v. Christianson · filed 2020-07-23(c)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Rutherford v. D & S Investment, LLC · filed 2020-07-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims; if it declines jurisdiction in a removed case, remand to state court is appropriate.

Harris v. Pennsylvania Department of Cor · filed 2020-07-30(c)(3)

The District Court is directed to consider whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’s state-law claims. ... If the District Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction, it should remand the cases to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when none of its factors supports declining jurisdiction.

McKinney v. Woodbrook TNC LLC · filed 2020-07-28(c)

For these reasons, and for others articulated in the defendants’ responses, McKinney’s Motion to Remand a portion of the case under § 1367(c) is DENIED.

Section 1367(c) permits the district court to reconsider whether to dismiss surviving state-law claims when an appellate decision changes which claims remain.

Joseph v. Berkeley Group, LLC · filed 2020-08-06(c)

We vacate the district court’s order to the extent it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pilots’ state-law claims. Vacating the order will allow the district court to determine in the first instance whether dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is appropriate, considering the state-law claims that remain after our decision in this appeal.

Section 1367(c) allows a court considering fairness and comity to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Whitaker v. The Dodsworth Building, LLC · filed 2020-08-07(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).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises novel or complex issues, substantially predominates, or presents other compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances.

Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey · filed 2020-08-13(c)

Subsections one, two, and four are relevant to the present action. ... It’s hard to imagine a case less suited to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. The court will order Plaintiff to show cause why Count II should not be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims when the remaining claim presents complex state law issues and no reason favors retaining it.

Brooks v. Office of the Tippecanoe County Coroner · filed 2020-08-14(c)

Finally, the proper resolution of the state law claim is not clear given the issues concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies raised by the instant motion. ... Accordingly, dismissal of the Plaintiff’s state law claim is warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law . . . .”).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim when questions of state constitutional law are best answered by state courts.

Richardson v. Clarke · filed 2020-08-17

... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and will dismiss it without prejudice.

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

White v. NewRez, LLC · filed 2020-08-17

Alternatively, Defendants urge this Court to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This Court has considered factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988). In the exercise of that discretion, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when comity and judicial efficiency weigh against hearing it.

Anders v. Benson · filed 2020-08-17(c)

The Court exercises its “broad discretion” to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Anders’ state-law mandamus claim for two primary reasons. First, the interest in comity weighs heavily against exercising jurisdiction over the claim. The claim relates to the manner and processes through which the State of Michigan and its elected officials administer and participate in elections for local government offices. This state-law dispute over state electoral matters is best decided by a state court. Second, retaining jurisdiction over the claim would undermine, not enhance, judicial efficiency because the claim arises out of distinct facts and is governed by different law than the claims Plaintiffs purport to bring under federal law.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise novel or complex issues, substantially predominate over federal claims, or present other compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances.

Reed-Pratt v. Winfrey · filed 2020-08-17(c)

A court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) if: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. Subsections one, two, and four are relevant to the present action.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Ennis v. Dawson · filed 2020-08-18(c)

In addition, because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim in any event. See 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 when the applicable factors favor declination.

Young v. LeBlanc · filed 2020-08-19(c)

Finally, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Young’s remaining state laws claims of negligence and breach of duty to protect. The federal-based claims have been dismissed and a balancing of applicable statutory factors favor that declination. Accordingly, the state-based claims are dismissed without prejudice. Enochs v. Lampasas Cty., 641 F.3d 155, 159 (5th Cir. 2011). Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) and (c)(3) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that substantially expand the suit after the federal claims are dismissed.

shefke v. Macomb Intermediate School District · filed 2020-08-19(c)(2), (c)(3)

Additionally, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s gross negligence and PWDCRA claims. The decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim is purely discretionary and depends on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... Counts I and III are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and (c)(3).

Section 1367(c) does not permit a district court to decline jurisdiction over a state-law claim that independently falls within its original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Cisneros v. Petland, Inc. · filed 2020-08-25(c)

After resolving Cisneros’s federal claims in favor of the defendants, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cisneros’s state- law claim under Georgia’s RICO statute. It should not have done so. Cisneros adequately alleged in her complaint that the Class Action Fairness Act vested the district court with original jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice when no federal claims survive.

Perry v. Parris · filed 2020-08-25(c)

Inasmuch as there are no surviving federal claims in this action, Plaintiff’s State-law claims will be DISMISSED without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when any one of its four listed grounds is met.

Driver v. Davis · filed 2020-08-26(c)

The four § 1367(c) factors are thus listed in the disjunctive, which means that only one of them need be met in order to grant a district court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jones v. Banks · filed 2020-08-26(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) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Bouyer v. Dr. David Canale Family Dentistry · filed 2020-08-28(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).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the plaintiff fails to justify retaining it after an order to show cause.

Rutherford v. 1721 Katella, LLC · filed 2020-09-01(c)

Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims when the federal claims have fallen out early and judicial economy, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Comprehensive Pathology Associates, P.A. v. UnitedHealthcare of Florida, Inc. · filed 2020-09-02(c)

In consideration of the above, this Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and finds remand to the state court to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Lerner v. Colman · filed 2020-09-04(c)

The remaining state law claims do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639-40 (2009); Lambert v. Fiorentini, 949 F.3d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 2020). Accordingly, these claims are dismissed without prejudice to their refiling in the appropriate state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify retaining related state-law claims when pursuing them in federal court may evade state filing restrictions.

Sung Choi v. CSHR, LLC · filed 2020-09-08(c)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of a state-law claim to the district court’s discretion when the balance of relevant considerations weighs against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Snider 834248 v. Corizon Medical · filed 2020-09-11(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 against Saad. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim against Defendant Saad will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Davis v. Benson · filed 2020-09-14(c)(1)

Plaintiff’s state claims comprise “novel and complex issue[s] of state law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The complaint asks the court to use the extraordinary remedy of an injunction, relying on state election law, weeks before a major election. Consistent with the Plaintiff’s current position, court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiff’s state claims (Count III and Count IV) without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant after the federal claims against that defendant fail.

Espinal-Guzman v. Auto Zone Puerto Rico Inc. · filed 2020-09-16

Since the federal claims against co-Defendant Camacho fail as a matter of law, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to the state law claims.

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

Davidson v. Diaz · filed 2020-09-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lee v. Lea I Almazan · filed 2020-09-24(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Pier v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. · filed 2020-09-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Amber Machowski v. Yeawary · filed 2020-09-24(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain related state law claims when they raise no novel or complex state law issue, do not predominate over the federal claim, and no compelling reason warrants declining jurisdiction.

LuckyShot LLC v. Runnit CNC Shop, Inc. · filed 2020-09-24(c)

Defendants have put forth no arguments or evidence that these claims raise novel or complex issues of state law. Nor do plaintiff’s state law claims predominate its federal trade secrets claim; in fact, the opposite is likely true, at least for the civil conspiracy claim. Finally, defendants have pointed to no other “compelling reasons” why this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Henao v. Parts Authority, LLC · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

Because the federal claims are dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to remand a removed state-law claim when no federal question remains, guided by economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

LARUE v. GREAT ARROW BUILDERS LLC · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)

It is well settled that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is discretionary once it has been determined that a federal question is not or is no longer in the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed the claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Wright v. Service Employees International Union Local 503 · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

If the Court dismisses the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, courts consider factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 561 (9th Cir. 2010). ... Having balanced these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after resolving the federal claims.

George v. Moore · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Any claim of medical negligence or even malpractice under state law is thus not independently actionable under § 1983, and I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). I will dismiss all such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related local claims when no listed ground for declining jurisdiction applies.

Simon v. Corrections Corporation of America (n/k/a CoreCivic., Inc.) · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Further, the local claims do not present any of the scenarios that would give the Court reason to decline to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the remaining claims raise local-law issues.

Wilkins v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-09-30(c)

In view of these concerns, the Court concludes that it is most appropriate not to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s common law assault claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction and the remaining claims raise complex state law issues.

Norman v. NYU Langone Health System · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Here, the first and third categories of § 1367(c) apply. The Court has dismissed the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction, and this action raises complex issues of state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Sherfield v. The Vons Companies, Inc. · filed 2020-10-01(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).

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

Showers v. Kosterman · filed 2020-10-07

The court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims arising under state law and DISMISSES those state law claims without prejudice.

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

Dunn v. Reshaw Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2020-10-07(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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.

CULLUM v. SMITH · filed 2020-10-09(c)(3)

Finally, where a district court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over federal claims and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to explain why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Bouyer v. Reseda Marketplace L.P. · filed 2020-10-13(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).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Rutherford v. Potholder P4 Inc · filed 2020-10-13(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).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal action.

Jones v. State of South Carolina and its agents · filed 2020-10-14

Finally, the magistrate judge determined that the court should ... decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over any state law claims asserted by Plaintiff. ... The court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report, (ECF No. 11), and incorporates it herein.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may raise whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction on its own initiative and seek briefing before deciding.

Bathke v. City of Ocean Shores · filed 2020-10-15(c)(3)

Because this is an issue that the Court raised in the order on summary judgment and may raise sua sponte, the Court finds that Bathke should be allowed an opportunity to adequately respond and the parties may also address the new procedural posture of this matter.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no claim remains within its original jurisdiction.

Greene v. State of Massachusetts · filed 2020-10-16(c)

In the absence of original subject matter jurisdiction, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Greene’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3)–(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal issues remain and judicial economy would not be served by retaining the case.

Moss v. Stanley · filed 2020-10-16(c)(3)–(4)

The Court finds that there are no remaining underlying issues of federal policy and judicial economy will not be served by keeping this action in federal court. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)–(4).

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

Lankford v. The Salvation Army · filed 2020-10-22(c)(4)

Because the parties in this matter appear to be non-diverse, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); Moor v. Cty. of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 716 (1973); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Thus, pursuant to § 1367(c), all of Plaintiff’s state law claims, including her claim under ELCRA as alleged in Count III of her complaint, are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state law claims alongside an FLSA claim when neither compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction nor substantial predominance of the state claims is shown.

SIRIN v. PORTX, INC. · filed 2020-10-22(c)

Defendants fail to persuade the Court that, given the overlap of issues, facts, and parties, there is a compelling reason to, in essence, sever the state claims from the FLSA action and create a situation in which two separate but duplicative actions must proceed, in federal court and in state court. And, for the same reason, there is no indication that the state claims predominate over, or threaten to overwhelm, the FLSA portion of this action.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to order a plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over accompanying state law claims.

Yeong Lee v. United Harbor, LLC · filed 2020-10-26(c)

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the Complaint for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims should not be declined when predominance or exceptional circumstances may justify declining it.

Kwon v. Lucky Oil Company, Inc. · filed 2020-10-26(c)

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the Complaint for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons.

Davidson v. Galaxy Oil Company · filed 2020-10-26(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the Complaint for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state claims raise complex state-law issues, predominate after federal claims are dismissed, and no claim within original jurisdiction remains.

Smith v. County of Santa Cruz · filed 2020-10-28(c)

Section 1367(c) outlines when it is appropriate for a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: ... The Court finds that it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction here under factors one, two, and three.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand a state-law claim when no viable federal claim remains.

Clark v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2020-10-29(c)

Consequently, the court recommends that this case be remanded to the Dorchester County Court of Common Pleas. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims before deciding whether to decline it.

Davidson v. 4X Projects Co. · filed 2020-10-30(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim joined with an ADA claim when the state claim predominates or exceptional circumstances supply compelling reasons.

Barekat v. Crown Vapors, LLC · filed 2020-10-30(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the Complaint for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim accompanying an ADA claim when the state claim may predominate or exceptional circumstances may provide compelling reasons.

Amber Machowski v. 4 The Dogs, LLC · filed 2020-10-30(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Allen v. Stringer · filed 2020-11-02(c)

The Court declines under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and dismisses such claims without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling them in an appropriate forum.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim and comity and forum shopping concerns present exceptional circumstances.

Gay v. Merritt Beverage LLC · filed 2020-11-05(c)

In sum, because (1) Plaintiff’s state law claim predominates over his federal claim ... under the ADA, and (2) the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute ... exceptional circumstances, the Court sua sponte declines supplemental jurisdiction over ... claim two in the complaint.

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

Cheek v. Lundquist · filed 2020-11-09

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims alleged by Plaintiff that may or may not be sufficiently pleaded.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that state courts are better suited to analyze.

Bernstein v. New York City Department Of Education · filed 2020-11-09(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Although the Court has analyzed the allegations according to the ADEA standards of liability and statute of limitations, the Court has not analyzed the NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims that contain additional allegations of racial discrimination and are subject to a longer statute of limitations. The state courts are better suited to analyze those claims in the first instance.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the remaining claims raise novel or complex state-law issues, and judicial economy and comity favor remand.

Covington 18 Partners LLC v. Lakeside Industries Inc · filed 2020-11-12(c)

The Court will exercise its discretion and decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction as the source of the Court’s original jurisdiction has been dismissed, Attu’s claims raise novel and complex issues of state law, and the interests of judicial economy and comity dictate against supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Langer v. Jacobson · filed 2020-11-12(c)

The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). ... Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

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

Kovalev v. Stepansky · filed 2020-11-17(c)

After dismissing the federal claims, 1 the District Court acted within its discretion when it determined that it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

Ramirez v. C and J Well Service, Inc. · filed 2020-11-19(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See id. In Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988), the Supreme Court set forth several factors to consider when determining whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing claims that previously provided the court with jurisdiction: (1) judicial economy, (2) convenience, (3) fairness, and (4) comity. See id. at 350 n.7. ... Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the PAGA claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Hubbard v. Harbin · filed 2020-11-19(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).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim before deciding whether to decline it.

Bouyer v. Sutter Point Plaza, LLC · filed 2020-11-19(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).

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

ARCHIE v. SMITH · filed 2020-11-25(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims as it is dismissing the federal claims.

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

Barekat v. Huong Ho · filed 2020-12-02(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Pier v. Tacos Ensenada · filed 2020-12-02(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lee v. Samaan · filed 2020-12-02(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 require a plaintiff to show cause before deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim.

Barekat v. Fan Shu Properties, LLC · filed 2020-12-07(c)

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the Complaint for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim is novel or complex, substantially predominates, all original-jurisdiction claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons.

Whitaker v. Kuhns · filed 2020-12-07(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances supply compelling reasons, and the court may seek a response before deciding whether to do so.

Jones v. MSM Laundry, LLC · filed 2020-12-08(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for similar reasons.