28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Ed Hull v. Artinian Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2020-12-10(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 when no federal claims remain and the case is at an early stage.

Excel Packaging Systems, Inc. v. Truline Packaging · filed 2020-12-10(c)

Moreover, no diversity jurisdiction exists because all parties are residents of California, FAC at ¶¶ 1–3, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the case is at an early stage and no federal claims exist, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when they predominate over the federal claims and comity and forum-shopping concerns favor state court adjudication.

Langer v. US Green Energy Technologies, Inc. · filed 2020-12-14(c)

As detailed below, in accordance with this district, this Court declines exercising supplemental jurisdiction because (1) state law claims predominate, (2) comity favors having the state court exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims, and (3) compelling interests favor discouraging forum-shopping.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss state-law claims when the plaintiff fails to justify retaining them after a show-cause order.

Gougis v. Shiv Priya, Inc. · filed 2020-12-16(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 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 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.

Garcia v. Carsten Co. LLC · filed 2020-12-16(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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Legister v. Radowitz · filed 2020-12-16(c)(3)

The Court declines to consider, under its supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s claims under state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim for the reasons specified in that subsection.

Kong v. Smyrniotis · filed 2020-12-17(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 over state-law claims after it dismisses the federal claims.

Ke v. Philadelphia Parking Authority · filed 2020-12-18(c)

Lastly, given the District Court’s dismissal of Ke’s federal claims, the District Court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim after the claim supporting original jurisdiction has settled when hearing the state claim offers no benefit of judicial economy or convenience.

Seaton v. Lowes Home Centers LLC · filed 2020-12-21

Here, while not “dismissed,” Plaintiff and Defendant have settled the dispute over which the Court had original jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore declines to take up this prospective state claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Adell v. Waupun Memorial Hospital · filed 2020-12-22(c)(3)

I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative state-law claims Plaintiff seeks to bring. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims have been dismissed or the state-law claims substantially predominate.

American Residential Holdings, LLC v. JTB Investments LLC · filed 2020-12-22(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under any of the following circumstances: (1) the state law claim involves a novel or complex issue of state law; (2) the state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim; (3) the federal claim has been dismissed; and (4) exceptional circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for two reasons. First, the federal claims have been dismissed and leave to amend those claims would be futile. Second, even if the federal claims were not dismissed, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not warranted because the state-law claims clearly predominate.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Banks v. Cotter Corporation · filed 2020-12-22(c)(2)

It is evident that Plaintiffs’ state law claims substantially predominate over Mallinckrodt’s PAA and federal contractor defenses, and Cotter does not argue otherwise. ... Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), a careful analysis of the Gibbs factors is warranted. ... Having carefully considered the Gibbs factors, this Court finds in its discretion that severance and remand is warranted.

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

Stewart, Travis v. Syed, Salem · filed 2020-12-28(c)

Here, since the court is dismissing all of Stewart’s federal claims against all defendants except Dr. Syed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against those other defendants.

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

Yeong Lee v. Kim · filed 2020-12-28(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.

DeSalvo v. River Jetty Restaurant Group, LLC · filed 2020-12-28(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 a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Whitaker v. Farha Subs, Inc · filed 2020-12-28(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 otherwise exists.

Salinas v. CHC Bayview LLC · filed 2020-12-28(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 gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against an attorney when there is no plausible federal claim against that attorney.

Allen v. Sidaros · filed 2020-12-30

Although the Court has discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the Court would decline to exercise its discretion in this case to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims against Lowry in the absence of a plausible federal law claim against Lowery.

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

Hayes v. Fay Servicing, LLC · filed 2023-09-05(c)(1), (c)(3)

Therefore, it would be futile to grant Hayes leave to amend and add these state law claims because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over them and I would not elect to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because they raise novel or complex issues of Virginia law, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), and because the court has “dismissed all claims over with [the Court] has original jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when comity and judicial economy favor their resolution in state court.

Stephens v. Town of Steilacoom · filed 2023-09-11(c)

The comity factor weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and considerations of judicial economy demand the same result.

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

Sneed v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections · filed 2023-09-14(c)

If Plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies of the federal claims, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims, as the Court will have dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the state law claims will substantially predominate over those federal claims, and the state law claims raise issues that appear complex under state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Gilbert v. Phull · filed 2023-09-15(c)(4)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code.

Section 1367 permits dismissal of supplemental state law claims without prejudice after the federal claims are dismissed.

Carter v. Rivershell Apartments, LLC · filed 2023-09-15

Plaintiff’s state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, including claims under California’s Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act.

Gastelum v. Hie River Park LLC · filed 2023-09-20(c)(4)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under California’s Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after weighing judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Cobb 370530 v. Burns · filed 2023-09-21(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendant Burns will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims are neither novel nor complex and do not predominate over substantial federal claims.

United States of America v. Consumer Law Protection, LLC · filed 2023-09-22(c)

Id. § 1367(c). Defendants briefly argue that the State of Wisconsin’s claims raise novel and/or complex issues of state law that will predominate the federal claims. The state law claims are neither novel, there being decades of case authority, nor complex and do not predominate the federal claims, which are substantial in this case.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, and to dismiss those state-law claims without prejudice when the relevant factors favor declining jurisdiction.

Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi · filed 2023-09-22(c)(3)

Here, the balance of factors favors declining the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and, therefore, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Camarena-Regalado v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group · filed 2023-09-25(c)

Considering all of the foregoing issues, in the exercise of discretion, supplemental jurisdiction is declined. There is no claim remaining over which there was original federal jurisdiction, and certain elements of the claims raise somewhat novel issues under California law.

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

Pollard, Donald v. Johnson, Sr., John · filed 2023-09-26(c)

At this relatively early stage of litigation, the court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and having no subject matter jurisdiction over their remaining state law claims in this case, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be dismissed as moot.

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

Gilbert v. Akhnana · filed 2023-09-26(c)(4)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when an enumerated exception applies, and an unexplained request to decline jurisdiction does not establish an exception.

Birdwell v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc. · filed 2023-09-27(c)

While a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” when one of four exceptions applies,” AvalonBay provides no explanation as to why any of the exceptions apply.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal claims have been dismissed, taking account of statutory and common-law factors.

Husak v. Baylor Scott & White Health · filed 2023-09-28(c)

The statutory factors provide no compelling reason to retain jurisdiction, either. Thus, Husak’s remaining, pendent state-law causes of action against Defendants should be dismissed without prejudice to their refiling in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining nondiverse crossclaims after resolving claims within its original jurisdiction.

Zurich American Insurance Company and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Ascent Construction · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)

Nevertheless, the court has no original jurisdiction over the claims of these non-diverse parties and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as the claims are closely related to Knowlton and Swenson’s divorce decree in state court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice these claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed while retaining state-law claims against defendants with pending federal claims.

Hunter 242663 v. Orsborne · filed 2023-10-02(c)

With respect to Defendants O’Brien and Teeple, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against these Defendants will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants without prejudice. As to Defendants Orsborne, Gustafson, and Neumann, because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against these Defendants, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim against Orsborne, Gustafson, and Neumann.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state law issues unnecessarily.

Peterson v. Washington · filed 2023-10-03(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 allows a court that dismisses the federal complaint to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Cooper v. Department of Correction NYC · filed 2023-10-04

Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims.

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

Upper Echelon Entertainment LLC v. The State of New York · filed 2023-10-05

As set forth in the Court’s August 18, 2023 Text Order, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over the state-law claims in the second amended complaint, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

29 Sylvan LLC v. Town of Narragansett · filed 2023-10-05

In its discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the lone claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Polk v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 2023-10-10(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case are nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ELCRA claim so as to avoid jury confusion.

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

Blythe v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 2023-10-10(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case are nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ELCRA claim so as to avoid jury confusion.

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

Matzinger v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 2023-10-10(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case are nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ELCRA claim 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).

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

Bloom v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 2023-10-10(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case are nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ELCRA claim 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), Plaintiff's state law claim in Count III of her complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Morawski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan · filed 2023-10-10(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case are nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the ELCRA claim 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).

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

Garcia v. Chorlian · filed 2023-10-12(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 a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when an ADA claim becomes moot and is dismissed early in the case.

Magallanes v. Villalpando · filed 2023-10-13(c)

If an ADA claim is mooted and dismissed at an early stage, the Court has the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Simmons v. Wayne, County of · filed 2023-10-16(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the Honorable Regina Thomas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim to require the plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised.

Brooke v. Hollywood Investments Inc. · filed 2023-10-17(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.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the requested relief lies uniquely within a state court’s authority.

Gabriel, LLC v. PMG Mid Atlantic, LLC · filed 2023-10-18(c)(4)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count IV because there is a compelling reason for declining jurisdiction, specifically, the fact that the relief sought in Count IV is uniquely within the authority of a state court to provide.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining them.

Batie 813603 v. Washington · filed 2023-10-18(c)

Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

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

Hawkins v. Counseling and Education Center Inc · filed 2023-10-17(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hawkins’s defamation claim under Arkansas law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction, the remaining claims raise a novel or complex state-law issue, or exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons.

City of Fernley v. Conant · filed 2023-03-17(c)

The district court had the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claims and dismiss them without prejudice. The court had already “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court was also within its discretion to conclude that Plaintiffs’ claims raise “a novel or complex issue of State law,” id. § 1367(c)(1), and that this case presents an “exceptional circumstance[]” in which there are “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction,” id. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Cruse v. Sanni · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)

To the extent Cruse raises state law claims of medical malpractice and negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and thus will dismiss such claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed and to retain jurisdiction where federal claims remain pending.

Cook 290601 v. Huss · filed 2023-03-21(c)

Because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Luther, Novak, Zupon, Traylor, Wood, Howard, Maranka, Dozeman, MDOC, Brown, Leitheim, Wellman, Washington, Demps, and Unknown Parties #1, #2, and #3, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants. Such claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Davids, Vashaw, Kelley, Stambaugh, Mygrant, Martens, Farnwalt, Wells, Jex, Watkins, and Caffiero, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related claims when none of the listed grounds for declining it applies, including when the claims invoking original jurisdiction are stayed rather than dismissed.

Foresight Energy, LLC v. Ace American Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-21(c)

Once supplemental jurisdiction is established, the court should decline to exercise it only if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claims invoking the court’s original jurisdiction, (3) the court has dismissed all claims invoking its original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances involving other compelling reasons to decline. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). None of these factors are present here, particularly insofar as the Court intends to stay rather than dismiss the case as to the Arbitration Defendants. 9 U.S.C. § 3. Accordingly, and the interest of judicial economy, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against the Domestic Defendants but will stay proceedings as to them as well, pending the outcome of arbitration.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no viable federal claim or diversity jurisdiction remains and to dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Griffin-Dudley v. Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority · filed 2023-03-21

Furthermore, without a viable federal claim or diversity of citizenship, I must decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss plaintiffs’ state-law claims against LMHA without prejudice to refiling those claims in the state court.

Section 1367(c)(2) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Inpatient Consultants Of North Carolina, P.C. v. Goad · filed 2023-03-22(c)(2)

Accordingly, the court has wide discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and to dismiss them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims while the complaint states no viable federal claim.

Paz v. Intermountain Healthcare · filed 2023-03-23(c)

The court exercises its discretion not to hear the state law claims unless and until Ms. Gomez Paz states a federal claim on which relief can be granted.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain state law claims against defendants with pending federal claims and decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have all been dismissed.

Tucker 132271 v. Kemp · filed 2023-03-23(c)

Here, Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Skytta, Wertanen, Snow, Williams, Velmer, and Frantti. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants. The Court, however, has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Kemp, Adams, Mohrman, Carroll, Majurin, and Redinger. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Kemp, Adams, Mohrman, Carroll, Majurin, and Redinger, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel state-law question and substantially predominates over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lopez-Victorino v. Colburn · filed 2023-03-23(c)

Because the State Action raises a novel question of state law, and because the State Action substantially predominates over the Declaratory Judgment Action, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State Action.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state law claims to the district court’s discretion, guided by judicial economy, avoiding multiple lawsuits, and avoiding unnecessary decisions on state law.

Strampel 298033 v. Li · filed 2023-03-24(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. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims.

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

Sifuentes v. Zoosk Inc. · filed 2023-03-24(c)(3)

Without any viable federal claims, the Court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under Section 1367(c)(3), as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing judicial economy and avoiding multiple suits against the need to avoid deciding state law issues.

Kolbucaj 683653 v. Pants · filed 2023-03-27(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims in the complaint.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining them.

Benn v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2023-03-27(c)

Furthermore, in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). 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)). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, particularly when the state-law provisions have little interpretive case law.

Schmitt v. Security National Servicing Corporation · filed 2023-03-28(c)(1), (c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law RMLA claim. As explained above, Plaintiff’s federal FDCPA claim is subject to dismissal, which creates a “strong presumption against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction” over the state RMLA claim. Packard v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Columbus Inc., 423 F. App’x 580, 584 (6th Cir. 2011). That is especially true, where, as here, there is minimal caselaw interpreting the recently amended RMLA provisions at issue.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after disposing of the federal claim when the state-law issue remains reasonably disputed.

Staten, Deshaun v. Kaeder-Schneider, Elizabeth · filed 2023-03-29(c)

Because the applicability of the medical malpractice exception is at least open to reasonable dispute, therefore, this court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Andrews v. Bailey · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

Thus, this Court has discretion to remand the pendant state-law claims if such remand will accommodate the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding that choice.

Deaton v. Town of Barrington · filed 2023-03-29(c)(3)

Further, “the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” counsel in favor of declining jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed every claim within its original jurisdiction or the remaining claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Carey v. The Georgia Department of Corrections · filed 2023-03-31(c)(1), (c)(3)

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when one of four conditions is met. Two of those circumstances are where (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, and (2) where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Here, two justifications exist for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, each of which is independently sufficient. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that it is appropriate to remand this action to the state court for further proceedings on Plaintiffs’ Georgia Tort Claims Act negligence claim against the GDC.

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

Waite v. Gonzalez · filed 2023-03-31(c)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a), (c)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants for whom it has dismissed all federal claims.

Raynor v. Washington · filed 2023-04-03(c)(3)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted against defendants against whom all federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the balance of relevant considerations weighs against retaining them.

Johnson 530994 v. Smits · filed 2023-04-04(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for novel state-law questions, state claims that substantially predominate over federal claims, or other compelling reasons; closely related state and federal claims arising from the same alleged scheme did not warrant declining jurisdiction.

United States of America ex rel. v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation · filed 2023-04-05(c)

Thus, this case does not invoke any of the applicable special circumstances that allow a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)—novel questions of state law, state claims that “substantially predominate” over the federal claims, or other “compelling reasons.”

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

Pung v. Tessellate, LLC · filed 2023-04-06(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case appear to be nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ELCRA claim 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).

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

Bagozzi v. Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies · filed 2023-04-07(c)(4)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims were dismissed after weighing judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Russell 408509 v. Loomis · filed 2023-04-10(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction with regard to Defendants Loomis and Brawly. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Loomis and Brawly will be dismissed without prejudice. Because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against Defendant Losinksi, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against Defendant Losinksi.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with the decision resting on a balance of relevant considerations.

Zimmerman 925164 v. Piggott · filed 2023-04-10(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims have dropped out and the remaining state law claims present novel or complex issues of state law.

M.G. v. Bainbridge Island School District 303 · filed 2023-04-13(c)

This Court had supplemental jurisdiction over Gerlach’s core state law claims when Bainbridge Island exercised its right to remove based on Gerlach’s express, if plainly implausible, assertion of civil claims under the federal criminal code. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This jurisdictional hook3 no longer exists, and all that remain are state law claims and, based on the Court’s review of Bradshaw and Wilson’s well-crafted motion, the gist of the case relates to a novel and possibly complex resolution of a state law defense based on a new version of a Washington state statute, RCW Ch. 4.105. There is no compelling reason for this Court to make that decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Any one of § 1367(c)’s four grounds is sufficient for a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Gastelum v. Cotton On USA, Inc. · filed 2023-04-14(c)

... satisfaction of any one of the four factors is sufficient to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when it concludes that no claim supports original federal jurisdiction.

Nordman v. Bon Appetit Management Co. · filed 2023-04-18(c)(3)

Because the court finds that the LMRA does not preempt any of Plaintiffs’ claims, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues unnecessarily.

Crumpton 271800 v. Barry, County of · filed 2023-04-24(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law negligence claims against the currently named MDOC Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed while retaining state-law claims against a defendant with a pending federal claim.

Johnson 212417 v. Anderson · filed 2023-04-24(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Hoover, Wilkinson, and Steward will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Hoover, Wilkinson, and Steward will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring that claim in the state courts. As to Defendant Anderson, because Plaintiff continues to have a pending federal claim against her, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Anderson.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the balance of relevant considerations weighs against retaining them.

Hinckley 512453 v. Washington · filed 2023-04-28(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Tule Lake Committee v. Faa · filed 2023-05-01

Given the lack of any claim within the original jurisdiction of the federal courts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Gilbert v. Dabb Liquor Incorporated · filed 2023-05-08(c)(4)

The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 14, 2023 (Doc. 17) are ADOPTED in full. ... The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code. ... Plaintiffs claims for violations of the Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955 and § 19959 are DISMISSED without prejudice.

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

Block v. Alzamzami · filed 2023-05-08(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Health & Safety Code.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when none of its four listed circumstances applies.

Lazar v. City of New York · filed 2023-05-10(c)

None of the four circumstances when a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) apply here.

Section 1367(c) makes dismissal of supplemental state-law claims discretionary, with judicial economy and the avoidance of needless state-law rulings informing the decision.

Grady-Wilkins 605313 v. Newton · filed 2023-05-11(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 with respect to Defendant Kent County as substitute for the KCCF. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendant Kent County will be dismissed without prejudice. Because the Section 1983 claim against Defendant Newton will go forward, however, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction with regard to a negligence claim against Defendant Newton.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim against a defendant when the federal claim against that defendant is dismissed at screening.

Santos v. Jones · filed 2023-05-17

Because Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Solomon is insufficient to proceed to service, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the claim Plaintiff asserts against Solomon under New York state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against dismissed defendants and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

King v. Aramark Correctional Services · filed 2023-05-17(c)(3)

The Court DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) over any state-law claims against the dismissed defendants, and DISMISS any such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the balance of relevant considerations weighs against retaining them.

Mitchell 215428 v. Ouellette · filed 2023-05-19(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed and to retain jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants with pending federal claims.

Bailey 254983 v. Hill · filed 2023-05-26(c)

Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Hill, Jr., Brennan, and Fielding, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claims against those Defendants. Those claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court. Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Hill, Sr., and Seymour, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against them.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Panarese v. Berry Global, Inc · filed 2023-05-30(c)(1)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ NYSHRL claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1); Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998); Harty v. Koutsourades, No. 20-CV-2779 (PMH), 2021 WL 1299495, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining them.

Reynolds 244081 v. Watson · filed 2023-06-01(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Lasko v. AMIP Management · filed 2023-06-02(c)

But without viable federal claims, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are not appropriate in this Court and cannot form the basis for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Carter v. Varnell · filed 2023-06-05

To the extent Carter is asserting these, or any other claims under state tort law, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over such state tort claims.

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

Kelly v. McLennan · filed 2023-06-05(c)

But in the absence of any plausible federal law claim and in the absence of federal diversity jurisdiction, I decline at this time to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any of his state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an underdeveloped state-law claim that would needlessly complicate litigation of federal claims.

DeRyke 313758 v. Saunders · filed 2023-06-05(c)

The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against Defendant Saunders. The claim is not well developed and will needlessly complicate litigation of the federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after disposing of the federal claim within its original jurisdiction, particularly when those claims raise novel and complex state-law issues.

Health Care Facilities Partners, LLC v. Diamond · filed 2023-06-05(c)

This Court has disposed of the federal claim over which it had original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The state law claims that remail raise novel and complex issues of Ohio law. ... The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and counterclaims, all of which are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law accessibility claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Gilbert v. Samra · filed 2023-06-06(c)(4)

Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, California Health and Safety Code claim, and any other state law construction-related accessibility claim are DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Gilbert v. Mane · filed 2023-06-07(c)(4)

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), 9 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act 10 claim and Plaintiff's Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19959 claims; 11 3, Plaintiff's Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19959 claims 12 are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); and 13 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further 14 proceedings.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims are dismissed.

Brockman 401131 v. Taskila · filed 2023-06-09(c)

Here, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Taskila, Horrocks, and Bastian will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants. Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the parties supplying federal jurisdiction are dismissed, taking account of fairness, convenience, and judicial economy.

DATA v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION · filed 2023-06-12(c)

Here, the Court finds that, in its discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, remand is warranted. ... Therefore, the Court finds that the interests of fairness, convenience, and judicial economy do not necessitate the invocation of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims for the reasons it lists.

Cooper v. Julia and David Properties, Inc. · filed 2023-06-14(c)

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 over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Frazier v. CR Western Co. LLC · filed 2023-06-14(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 relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when it dismisses the federal claims before trial.

Mosley v. Gott · filed 2023-06-15(c)

Because the federal claims must be dismissed, the court will also dismiss this state law claim without prejudice. See Doe–2 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Dirs., 593 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir.2010) (“Ordinarily, when a district court dismisses the federal claims conferring original jurisdiction prior to trial, it relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 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.

Myles 439074 v. Carr · filed 2023-06-15(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Carr, Miller, Rectenwal, and Wideman will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state-law claims against these Defendants without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court.

Section 1367(c) calls for balancing the statutory factors when deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, including whether those claims are complex or predominate and whether all federal claims have been dismissed.

Sanford v. Kirst · filed 2023-06-16(c)

Thus, three of the four factors weigh heavily in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (and two heavily so).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Doe v. Alpine School District · filed 2023-06-21(c)

In weighing the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in light of the above-cited caselaw, the court elects to remand the negligence claim to state court rather than resolve the dispute concerning dismissal of the negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not require a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff has failed to allege a federal claim.

Neill v. Neill · filed 2023-06-21(c)(3)

This Court is not obliged to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, even if valid, given that Plaintiff has failed to allege a federal claim.

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal without prejudice of state law counterclaims when the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.

Imprenta Services, Inc. v. Karll · filed 2023-06-22(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), Defendants’ state law counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Brathwaite v. Leticia · filed 2023-06-26(c)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and on immunity grounds. The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Trujillo v. Chaudhary · filed 2023-07-13(c)(4)

Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 10, 2023, (ECF No. 16), are ADOPTED in full; 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and Plaintiff's Cal. Health & Safety Codes §§ 19955 and 19959 claims; 3, Plaintiff's Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Codes §§ 19955 and 19959 claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); 4. Plaintiffs pending motion for default judgment, (ECF No. 11), is DENIED, without prejudice, subject to being renewed as to the remaining claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and 5. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

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

Nelson v. Scott · filed 2023-07-13(c)(4)

Because the parties in this matter are non-diverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 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), the state law claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint, including those in “Claim Number Five,” are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

Rigoni v. Morton · filed 2023-07-17(c)(4)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when no related federal claim survives initial review.

Eubanks v. Bates · filed 2023-07-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, because no related § 1983 claim has passed initial review.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after resolving the federal claims and when unresolved state law issues favor adjudication in state court.

Galli v. City of Henderson · filed 2023-07-19(c)

Two bases exist for me to deny supplemental jurisdiction. First, I have resolved the federal § 1983 claims over which I had original jurisdiction. Second, at least one of the plaintiff’s state law claims raises unresolved issues of state law that are best determined by the Nevada courts, such that comity considerations weigh against exercising jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Gilbert v. Ramos Diaz Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2023-07-20(c)(4)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and Plaintiff's Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19959 claims; ... Plaintiff's Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19959 claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); and ... This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when judicial economy and convenience favor doing so.

Ruiz v. Tesla, Inc. · filed 2023-07-27(c)

Thus, the court will exercise its discretion and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining PAGA claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim when no reason warrants retaining them.

ARP II v. INDIANA STATE POLICE · filed 2023-07-31(c)

The Court finds that none of the exceptions apply to Arp's state law claims, and the Court sees no reason to deviate from the "usual practice" of relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim that duplicates a federal constitutional claim.

Cunningham v. Rowley · filed 2023-08-03(a)

There is no reason for the court to allow the plaintiff to proceed on identical claims under federal and state law. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a potential state law claim under Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(a); Bailey v. City of Chicago, 779 F.3d 689, 696 (7th Cir. 2015) (“The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is purely discretionary.”).

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

Hyde v. Marion · filed 2023-08-04(c)(3)

When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the district court has discretion to either retain jurisdiction over the supplemental claim or dismiss it. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 717 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 870 (1998). Generally, the pendent state law claim is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), (3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7 (1988). The Court will follow the general rule here. Count 4 shall be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff re-pleading this claim in this or another action in federal or state court.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Brooke v. Westchase Mini Suites LLC · filed 2023-08-07(c)(4)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Brooke’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim within its discretion.

Brooke v. Ventura Beach Ventures LLC · filed 2023-08-07(c)(4)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over Brooke’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167, 1171-73 (9th Cir. 2022) (setting forth standard of review and explaining when a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims under § 1367(c)(4)).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims only when an enumerated circumstance applies.

(PC) Millare v. CDCR · filed 2023-08-07(c)

None of the 11 | circumstances set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permitting district courts to decline 12 | supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, exist. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request 13 | for the Court to remand his state law claims is denied.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state-law claims to the district court’s discretion, informed by judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues unnecessarily.

Bennett 799595 v. Schiebner · filed 2023-08-08(c)

Further, in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). 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)). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing judicial economy, avoiding multiple lawsuits, and the need to decide state law issues.

Sparks 929615 v. Goodspeed · filed 2023-08-10(c)

Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff intended to bring state law claims regarding the violation of the MDOC’s policies, in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). 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)). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after considering its statutory factors and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Gay v. H & R Block · filed 2023-08-11(c)

The Court further refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims based on the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and other considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when judicial economy and convenience favor resolving it alongside an established ADA claim.

Gilbert v. Bagga Grandsons Inc · filed 2023-08-11(c)(4)

Here, however, the interests of judicial economy and convenience favor exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Mixan v. Greenbaum · filed 2023-08-16(c)(3)

Here, the Court finds, in considering the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties, no reason to retain supplemental jurisdiction here based upon the dismissal of the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state law claims to the district court’s discretion after weighing judicial economy and avoiding multiple suits against the need to decide state law issues.

Hollingsworth 319376 v. Schiebner · filed 2023-08-16(c)

Further, in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). 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)). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims.

McGinnis 139325 v. Washington · filed 2023-08-17(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)). Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Washington and O’Brien will be dismissed, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state-law claims against these Defendants without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed after weighing the relevant considerations.

Miles 237011 v. Michigan, State of · filed 2023-08-21(c)

The Court concludes that as to these Defendants, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Heintriz, Washington, and MDOC Insurance Company Unknown Party #1 will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Sigourney v. Danielson · filed 2023-08-22(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). The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims that Plaintiff intended to raise, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims for the reasons it specifies.

Cauley v. Arca Financial Services · filed 2022-07-06(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) allows a court to consider California’s procedural rules for disability access cases brought by frequent plaintiffs as exceptional circumstances that may justify declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Garcia v. Sood · filed 2022-07-06(c)(4)

California’s procedural rules for disability access cases brought by frequent plaintiffs like Garcia constitute exceptional circumstances that may be sufficient to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Steward v. Touchpoint Support Services, LLC · filed 2022-07-06(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims more suitably addressed by state courts.

Brandenburg v. Michigan Board of State Canvassers · filed 2022-07-07(c)(1)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. ... Plaintiff alleges violations of Michigan’s constitution, which is more suitably addressed by the state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when it presents complex state law issues and all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Baker v. Bentonville School District · filed 2022-07-08(c)

Because of the complex issues of State law and because the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response Trust v. National Grid USA · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)

As was previously explained, 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[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered . . . –judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). This case did not warrant an exception to that usual rule before, and it does not now. See RACER I, 2020 WL 2404770, at *13. Plaintiffs’ claims under New York’s Navigation Law are far better left to the care of New York state courts. And in any case, discovery has not yet begun. Therefore, there is no cause to maintain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims. They must be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain jurisdiction over related state law claims when none of its grounds for declining jurisdiction applies and trying the claims together promotes judicial efficiency.

Knight v. Trotter · filed 2022-07-11(c)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where (1) the claim raises a novel or complex question 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 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). None of these factors exist here.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them if the plaintiff does not adequately justify retaining them.

Brooke v. Profficient Hotel LP · filed 2022-07-12(c)

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims and dismissing such claim or claims without further notice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims for the reasons it specifies.

Brooke v. Urban Commons Sycamore LLC · filed 2022-07-12(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a crossclaim that substantially predominates over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hermes Health Alliance, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London · filed 2022-07-12(c)(2)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute expressly vests discretion in the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims when inter alia the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction. ... It cannot be disputed that Girod’s claim to recover on the allegedly past due promissory note—which includes a claim for unpaid principal, non-default interest, default interest, insurance premiums, valuation charges, continuing per diem interest, and attorney’s fees and costs—substantially predominates Girod’s claim to ownership of the $210,000.00 on deposit and is vastly outside the scope of the interpleader proceeding.

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

Whitehurst v. Robb · filed 2022-07-14(c)

To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations may be construed to support a claim under state law, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when judicial economy favors doing so after dismissal of the federal claim.

Johnson v. San Francisco Health Care and Rehab Inc. · filed 2022-07-15(c)

Because the Court has not considered the merits of Plaintiff’s allegations, judicial economy favors declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Holland v. Lenard Young · filed 2022-07-18(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- 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 - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

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

Cauley v. Padilla · filed 2022-07-18(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, Disabled Persons Act Claim, Health and Safety Code claim, and negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) does not permit dismissal of a supplemental Unruh Act claim on the exceptional-circumstances rationale for high-frequency ADA litigants when the claim concerns website accessibility rather than construction-related accessibility.

Gomez v. Turnbull Wine Cellars · filed 2022-07-18(c)(4)

However, such exceptional circumstances only exist where the plaintiff has filed a “construction-related accessibility claim.” Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206. The plaintiff’s claim in this case—alleging that a website is inaccessible—is not a construction-related accessibility claim. There are therefore no exceptional circumstances that would justify dismissal of the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the case is still at an early pleading stage.

Portillo v. City of National City · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

Moreover, when a court dismisses the federal claims from a complaint, it has discretion on whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 728 (1966). Here, since the federal-question claims are dismissed, and because this case is at an early stage in the pleadings, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law causes of action.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when good reasons favor doing so.

Kitchen v. Whitmer · filed 2022-07-21(c)

And, when there are good reasons, a federal district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... For all these reasons, even if the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Kitchen’s claim under the Michigan constitution, it would decline to exercise that jurisdiction.