28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when fairness and comity counsel against exercising it.

Marquise Bailey v. Min Ho Lee · filed 2022-07-22(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 any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, which typically include a high-frequency litigant bringing an Unruh Act claim alongside an ADA claim.

Whitaker v. Tashi VN Grill, Inc · filed 2022-07-22(c)(4)

When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim and compelling reasons favor declining jurisdiction.

Gastelum v. TJX Companies · filed 2022-07-22(c)(2), (c)(4)

Because the state law claim substantially predominates over the ADA claim and there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction due to California’s heightened pleading standard for Unruh Civil Rights Act claims, the Court declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Elliott v. Walters · filed 2022-07-25(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

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 jurisdiction.

Bryant v. St. More Investment, Inc. · filed 2022-07-25(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-related Unruh Act claim at an early stage to protect state comity interests.

Marquise Bailey v. Kling · filed 2022-07-29(c)(4)

This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists, considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of the state-law claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Cauley v. Georgouses · filed 2022-07-29(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 state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Delapaz v. 2104 PCH, LLC · filed 2022-07-29(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 an Unruh Act claim accompanying an ADA claim for the reasons specified in that subsection.

Williams v. Amar Square LLC · filed 2022-07-29(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim when the federal claim supporting original jurisdiction has been withdrawn, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Mancilla v. GR OPCO, LLC · filed 2022-07-29(c)(3)

Upon review of the record and in light of the parties’ arguments at the Motion hearing, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim. As an initial matter, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) states that the court may, at its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the federal claim for failure to state a claim.

Young v. Lake Royale Association · filed 2022-07-29

Here, the magistrate judge recommends that plaintiffs’ claims for retaliation in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, be dismissed for failure to state a claim and that their state law claims be dismissed upon declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Upon careful review of the M&R, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be thorough, and there is no clear error. The court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises an open issue of state law after the federal claim fails.

IDEXX LABORATORIES INC v. BILBROUGH · filed 2022-08-02(c)(1), (c)(3)

Whether a plaintiff could proceed on a claim under MUSTA based on the inevitable disclosure doctrine is apparently an open question under Maine law. The issue is most appropriately decided in state court. Where Plaintiff has not alleged a claim under federal law, the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under MUSTA.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when comity concerns tied to state policy present exceptional circumstances and a compelling reason.

Wilson 453216 v. Blue · filed 2022-08-10(c)(4)

The Court concludes that the deference and respect that principles of comity require, considered in light of Michigan’s policy choices for medical malpractice claims, present an exceptional circumstance that provides a compelling reason to decline jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims.

Looper v. Barr · filed 2022-08-16(c)

It is further ORDERED that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is DECLINED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims tied to an FLSA overtime claim when none of its grounds warrants declining jurisdiction.

Quinones v. Extreme Customs LLC · filed 2022-08-24(c)

Furthermore, finding Ahle persuasive, the Court also concludes that none of the reasons articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) warrant declining the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Boyd v. Connecticut · filed 2022-08-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

All claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction are now resolved. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Further, Plaintiff’s complaint raises significant and novel issues of Connecticut law that have not yet been addressed by Connecticut appellate courts. For example, whether Connecticut recognizes a private right of action under several of the provisions relied upon, i.e., Articles 8 (Due Process), 13 (Treason and Felony) and 14 (Redress of Grievances). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1); United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966) (“Needless decision of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law.). And whether supplemental jurisdiction is properly exercised remains an open question throughout the litigation. Id. at 727. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims. See Reyes v. Erickson, 238 F. Supp. 2d 632, 639 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). All such claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the plaintiff amends a removed case to eliminate federal claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Yurick v. Town of Vestal · filed 2022-08-24(c)(3)

That being the case, and given the early stage of this case during which formal discovery has not commenced and the Court has not ruled on a substantive motion directed at Plaintiff’s claims, the Court balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the Amended Complaint.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise novel or complex issues or the court has dismissed every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Asinor v. District of Columbia · filed 2022-08-29(c)(1), (c)(3)

Section 1367 grants district courts the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” id. § 1367(c)(1), or “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” id. § 1367(c)(3). Both conditions apply here.

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

Cox v. Flower Development, LLC · filed 2022-08-30(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim by a high-frequency litigant when California’s heightened pleading rules and comity concerns create exceptional circumstances.

Johnson v. Constantia Capital Limited · filed 2022-08-30(c)(4)

Such “exceptional circumstances” are present here, as they have been in several cases in this District brought by such high-frequency litigants in the months since Arroyo was decided. ... Given the identical comity concerns at play here, and in line with the dispositions of similar cases in this Court, supplemental jurisdiction will not be exercised in this case.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim after dismissing the federal ADA claim when comity concerns and the early stage of litigation favor dismissal.

Salinas v. Grgich · filed 2022-08-31(c)(3), (c)(4)

Supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate in this case. ... The fairness and comity considerations in light of California’s “carefully crafted reforms in this area” are present here. ... The litigation is still in its early stages. ... Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claims.

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

Davidson v. Stringer · filed 2022-08-31(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiff's complaint contains state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and city law claims after dismissing the federal claim for lack of Article III standing.

Hennessy v. Poetica Coffee Inc · filed 2022-09-07(c)(1)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are eliminated, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and forum shopping.

Varma v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

For all those reasons, and having explicitly considered concerns of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and forum shopping, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Varma’s state-law claims.

Section 1367 makes declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim discretionary rather than mandatory.

Bartnicki v. Scranton School District · filed 2022-09-15

The supplemental jurisdiction statute makes declination of jurisdiction over a state law claim “permissive, not mandatory.” New Rock Asset Partners, L.P. v. Preferred Entity Advancements, Inc., 101 F.3d 1492, 1508 (3d Cir. 1996) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1367). We will not second guess the District Court’s exercise of its discretion.

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

Brown v. Ray · filed 2022-09-26(c)

Finally, the magistrate judge stated that, “[a]ssuming Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is dismissed by this Court and Plaintiffs’ complaint somehow can be conceived to state an additional claim for relief under any state common law theory,” the magistrate judge recommended that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Having carefully reviewed the record, the detailed and thorough Report, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge and hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state accessibility claims when evasion of state filing restrictions creates exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons grounded in comity.

Soto v. Vargas · filed 2022-10-11(c)(4)

The Court therefore concludes that “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” support the Court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act and any other construction-related accessibility claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when exceptional circumstances and the balance of fairness, comity, convenience, and judicial economy provide compelling reasons.

Johnson v. Ruiz · filed 2022-10-11(c)(4)

While concurrent federal and state litigation may not be convenient for Johnson, the Court finds that on balance, the interests of fairness and comity strongly counsel in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons, including fairness, judicial economy, and comity.

Whitaker v. Avocado Toast Inc · filed 2022-10-14(c)(4)

The court finds that fairness, judicial economy, and comity all favor allowing plaintiff to pursue his Unruh Act claim in state court.

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

De Leon v. Grandville, City of · filed 2022-10-14(c)(3)

Although De Leon did not object to the dismissal of the remaining state-law claims, the Court agrees with R&R’s recommendation that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state-law claim or when exceptional circumstances provide a compelling reason, including a direct conflict between the state law to be enforced and federal law.

Brabham v. Owens · filed 2022-10-20(c)(1), (c)(4)

Whether or not there is an implied private of action against state officials for violation of 35 P.S. § 10231.2103(a) appears to be a “novel . . . issue of State law.” ... Even if there were a private right of action this Court would still decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... The fact that adjudicating the state law would require the Court to enforce a state law directly at odds with federal law is a “compelling reason[] for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1376(c)(4).

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

Sanchez v. Torrance County Sheriffs Department · filed 2022-10-28

To the extent Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be construed as asserting a state-law claim for negligence, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over this claim and dismisses it without prejudice.

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

DUGLAS v. SOTO-PILLOT, D.O. · filed 2022-11-01(c)

To the extent that the Complaint can be interpreted to raise a claim under state law, the Court will decline to exercise supplementary jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction and remand is supported by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Hunter v. City of Vancouver · filed 2022-11-07(c)

At this juncture, the Court is not aware of what state law issues may be raised, but state law claims will predominate, the Court has dismissed claims of original federal jurisdiction, and there are no compelling reasons for retaining jurisdiction.

A request to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the expected dismissal of federal claims fails when those federal claims survive.

SS Richmond LLC v. Harrison · filed 2022-11-09(a)

Based on the assumed dismissal of Plaintiffs’ federal law claims, Defendants move the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law pendent claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). As the Court has already denied Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ first two claims, the Court likewise rejects Defendants’ challenges to the state law claims.

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

Weathersby v. Dr. May · filed 2022-11-14(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim under Delaware law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they would predominate over federal claims and risk jury confusion.

Stallman v. Oakland, County of · filed 2022-11-14(c)

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claims would predominate over the federal claims asserted in this action. In addition, the Court finds that the potential for jury confusion in this case would be great if Plaintiff’s federal claims were presented to a jury along with Plaintiff’s state-law claims. Thus, the potential for jury confusion is yet another reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the associated federal claim is dismissed.

Medina-Rodriguez 957537 v. Frank · filed 2022-11-17(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)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Because Plaintiff’s federal claim against Defendant Peterson will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim against this Defendant.

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

HARKER v. CORNELIUS · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts wide discretion to dismiss state law claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Adams v. Fuller · filed 2022-11-28(c)

The district court has wide discretion to dismiss state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Manyweather v. Woodlawn Manor, Inc., 40 F.4th 237, 246 (5th Cir. 2022). And Adams fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing these claims.

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

Robinson v. Statewide Wrecker Service, Inc. · filed 2022-11-30(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed. The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the sole matters for which this Court held original jurisdiction. As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim at an early stage when retaining it would undermine California’s statutory reforms and federal-state comity.

Singh v. Casa Jalisco, Inc. · filed 2022-12-01(c)(4)

Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and this Court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice his Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim early in an ADA suit when retaining it would undermine California’s litigation reforms and federal-state comity.

Zendejas v. Garcia · filed 2022-12-02(c)(4)

This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice her Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4).

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

Tate 320422 v. Tanner · filed 2022-12-12(c)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Health Care of E.C. Brooks Correctional Facility, Lamb, Castenholz, and Britton will be dismissed, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against these Defendants.

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

Bobo 186601 v. Ericsons · filed 2022-12-13(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when federal filing may circumvent California’s requirements for high-frequency litigants.

Cauley v. Thee R. Hamilton · filed 2022-12-14(c)(4)

And the Ninth Circuit has found “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) when a plaintiff would be allowed to circumvent and render ineffectual California’s “procedural requirements aimed at limiting suits by high-frequency litigants” by filing an Unruh Act claim in federal court and invoking the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim based on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Arroyo.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim in exceptional circumstances.

Johnson v. Borel Square LLC · filed 2022-12-14(c)(4)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim for the reasons specified in that subsection.

Benford v. Chaekal & Morita Gardena, LLC · filed 2022-12-15(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim early in an ADA case when retaining it would threaten federal-state comity.

Gonzalez v. Ahdoot · filed 2022-12-15(c)(4)

Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and this Court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice his Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4).

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

ELISENS v. MAINE STATE FORENSICS DHHS · filed 2022-12-19(c)(3)

Even if the Court were to determine Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim did not implicate the Younger doctrine, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law defamation claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3) allow a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel issue or all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Coon v. County of Lebanon · filed 2022-12-19(c)(1), (c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” In the present instance, both subsections apply. Given the novel nature of the legal question presented, the court concludes that the issues would be better addressed by the state court. Accordingly, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims and will remand Counts VII through XI, XIV through XV, and, to the extent they rely on state claims, Counts XII through XIII to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the basis for original jurisdiction falls away, weighing convenience, fairness, and judicial economy.

Bismack v. Xerox Corporation · filed 2022-12-22(c)(3)

In Shanaghan v. Cahill,, the Fourth Circuit determined that “the supplemental jurisdiction model of discretion should apply when the amount in controversy falls below the [amount-in-controversy] threshold, just as it does when a federal question or a diverse claim falls out of a case.” ... Based on the foregoing, the court declines to retain jurisdiction over the remaining SCPWA and state law contract claims.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal law claims after dismissing the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Calcano v. Jonathan Adler Enterprises, LLC · filed 2022-12-28

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege standing and dismisses Plaintiff’s ADA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state and municipal law claims.

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

McKinnon v. Bryan County, Georgia Sheriff Deputy 1 · filed 2022-12-29(c)

To the extent that McKinnon intended to assert any state-law claims in his Amended Complaint, the Court should decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over those claims, since the federal claims are subject to dismissal.

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

(PS) Selck v. Mikuni Restaurants · filed 2022-12-30(c)(3)

However, as the court finds there are no claims invoking the court’s original jurisdiction, the recommendation is to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any such state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a purported state-law claim that the plaintiff has not properly moved to add.

Taylor v. Shelton · filed 2023-02-24(c)

To the extent that she may be attempting to do so in her responses to the defendant’s motions, she has raised no proper motion to amend, and I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Frazier v. Ketchian · filed 2023-02-24(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when California’s high-frequency-litigant procedures create exceptional circumstances and comity outweighs judicial economy and convenience early in the case.

Gastelum v. TJX Companies · filed 2023-02-24(c)(4)

Such “exceptional circumstances” are present here, as Mr. Gastelum does not dispute that, were he to file his Unruh Act claim in state court, he would be subject to the “procedural structures” established by the California legislature to further the interests described in Arroyo.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Scott v. Parker · filed 2023-02-24(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed all of the plaintiff’s federal claims early in the proceedings, the Court concludes that the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity all point toward declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when complex state law issues and late notice of the claims provide compelling reasons.

Hall v. Myotte · filed 2023-02-28(c)(1), (c)(4)

For these reasons—the state law complications and the late notice of these claims—the Court will decline to exercise its 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.

Lopez v. Dang · filed 2023-03-01(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine . . . 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).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Walker v. 5609 Sunset Boulevard, LLC · filed 2023-03-01(c)

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

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

Guillen v. Davis · filed 2023-03-01(c)

It is further ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff’s complaint may be interpreted as asserting state law claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are eliminated and to remand a removed case to state court.

Paparella v. Liddle & Robinson, L.L.P. · filed 2023-03-03(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to either remand or dismiss a case when it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, even if the Court had original jurisdiction at the time of removal, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the FAC and instead remand the case to state court.

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

Lunney v. The City of New York · filed 2023-03-06(c)

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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over accessibility related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Gilbert v. Bonfare Markets, Inc. · filed 2023-03-07(c)(4)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: ... 2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9t h 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; and 3, 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); 4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

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

Fishburne v. S.C. Department of Corrections · filed 2023-03-08(c)

To the extent Plaintiff is asserting common law and state law claims for negligence and defamation, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) do not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when related state law claims raise no novel or complex state law issues and do not substantially predominate over federal claims.

RC Recreation Development, LLC v. The Town of Yorktown · filed 2023-01-03(c)(1), (c)(2)

Here, based on a fair reading of the complaint, the state law claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law, and do not substantially predominate over the related federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Hee Soon Park v. 801 S. Spring Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-01-05(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)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim when exceptional circumstances threaten federal-state comity and fairness and comity provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Gomez v. Reynolds Creative Products, Inc. · filed 2023-01-05(c)(4)

As to the second part, the Court finds that the values of fairness and comity provide “‘compelling reasons’ for declining supplemental jurisdiction in this case.”

Under § 1367(c)(4), fairness and comity can provide compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim.

Garcia v. Sun-Hayward, LLC · filed 2023-01-05(c)(4)

As to the second part, the Court finds that the values of fairness and comity provide “‘compelling reasons’ for declining supplemental jurisdiction in this case.”

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain a related state-law claim when it raises no novel or complex state-law issue, does not substantially predominate over the federal claim, and no exceptional circumstance warrants declining jurisdiction.

Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc. · filed 2023-01-06(c)

First, the court does not find, and defendants do not show, Patterson’s claim raises a novel and difficult question of state law or predominates over his ADA claim. ... Second, the court does not find any exceptional circumstances that warrant dismissal of Patterson’s Unruh claim.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed or the remaining state claims raise novel or complex issues of state law.

Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections · filed 2023-01-09(c)

Here, two of the four conditions in § 1367(c) are present. All Plaintiff’s federal claims will be dismissed by this order. Accordingly, this Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” and so has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under § 1367(c)(3). Moreover, the remaining state claims “raise novel or complex issues of state law” under § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when exceptional circumstances and the Gibbs values justify doing so.

Sepulveda v. Cai · filed 2023-01-09(c)(4)

After balancing the Gibbs values in this case, the Court finds exceptional circumstances exist to justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state disability claims when California’s high-frequency-litigant rules may justify declining it.

Marquise Bailey v. Canino Jr. · filed 2023-01-10(c)(4)

Numerous district courts have found that this California legislative attempt to regulate the prosecution of disability access cases by certain high-frequency plaintiffs provides “compelling reasons” and constitutes an “exceptional circumstance” justifying the decline of supplemental jurisdiction over disability state law claims in certain cases. ... 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.

Under § 1367(c), California’s efforts to regulate Unruh Act disability access litigation can make fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Jones v. San Pedro Gaffey Investments, LLC · filed 2023-01-10(c)

Given California’s efforts to curtail abuses of the Unruh Act, fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

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.

Cox v. Torkomian · filed 2023-01-11(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” ... 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, California’s Disabled Persons Act, California’s Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims.

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

Cox v. Esfandi · filed 2023-01-17(c)

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

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

Doering v. Rhee · filed 2023-01-17(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 district court to reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim and to require the plaintiff to show cause before declining it.

Trujillo v. Hernandez · filed 2023-01-19(c)

Having further considered the matter based upon the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Vo v. Choi, this Court will vacate the findings and recommendations and order 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); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh Act and ADA case).

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

Walker v. Benbaroukh, LLC · filed 2023-01-20(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).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim early in an ADA suit to protect federal-state comity when retaining the claim would undermine California’s reforms.

Cox v. Sun Young Lim · filed 2023-01-20(c)(4)

Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and this Court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice his Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over a related Unruh Act claim early in an ADA suit to protect federal-state comity.

Zendejas v. Asplund · filed 2023-01-23(c)(4)

Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and this Court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice her Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim in exceptional circumstances.

Gilbert v. Signature Services · filed 2023-01-23(c)(4)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

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

Hernandez v. Medellin · filed 2023-01-24(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 any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when the federal basis for the case has fallen away.

PORTVIEW PROPERTIES, LLC v. CORECIVIC, INC. · filed 2023-01-24(c)

Further, the matter exclusively presents state-law claims, and this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

American Apparel & Footwear Association, Inc. v. Schroeder · filed 2023-01-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if, among other reasons, “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). As the Court previously noted, “[t]hat is the situation with Plaintiffs’ second count.” Am. Apparel I, 2022 WL 2235907, at *15. Plaintiffs’ state law claim involves a new and complex statutory and administrative framework that the Oregon Supreme Court has yet to interpret. ... Finally, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the Court grants in full Defendants’ motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ federal claims, their state claim is the only claim remaining. The Court declines to grant supplemental jurisdiction to Plaintiffs’ second claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when the related ADA claim survives and the grounds for declining jurisdiction do not warrant dismissal.

Gastelum v. TC Heritage Inn 2 of Bakersfield LLC · filed 2023-01-25(c)

Therefore, the Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claim is dismissed when the state law issues are not truly novel and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor resolving them.

Eaton v. Estabrook · filed 2023-01-26(c)(1), (c)(3)

Although the federal claim has not survived, the Court is unconvinced that the state law claims present truly novel issues of state law such that the Court should defer to the state court in the interest of comity. ... In addition, given the advanced stage of this case and this Court’s familiarity with the issues presented, the additional interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh in favor of the Court resolving the remaining state law claims.

A district court may defer deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while a federal claim remains pending.

Komatsu v. Urban Pathways, Inc. · filed 2023-01-26(c)(3)

At this stage, it is premature to determine whether the Court will decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any claims under state law that Plaintiff is asserting.

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

Jaramillo v. Director, TDCJ · filed 2023-01-27(c)(3)

Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where, as here, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law disability claims when California’s high-frequency-litigant rules may warrant declining it.

Gonzalez v. Chelsi LLC · filed 2023-01-30(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 court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Williams v. Long Beach Mortgage Company · filed 2023-01-30

Accordingly, this matter is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Walker v. H and K Real Estate Investments · filed 2023-02-01(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim early in an ADA case when doing so protects comity interests.

Cox v. Hom · filed 2023-02-09(c)(4)

Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and this Court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. This appears to be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice his Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim before deciding the merits of a related ADA claim when exceptional circumstances and comity concerns favor doing so.

Brooks v. Tapestry, Inc. · filed 2023-02-15(c)(4)

Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim here, where the court has not yet determined the merits of plaintiff’s ADA claim, is appropriate and consistent with recent Ninth Circuit authority addressing this issue. ... For these reasons, and consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim in this action.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the statutory and common law factors favor dismissal.

Spell v. Edwards · filed 2023-02-17(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. It considered the statutory factors15 and our circuit’s common law factors,16 concluding that “all factors favor[ed] dismissing” the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim when strong comity concerns arising from evasion of California filing restrictions outweigh considerations of economy and efficiency.

Gastelum v. Tri-County Hospitality · filed 2023-02-01(c)(4)

Having considered the merits of Tri-County’s argument on this point, the early procedural status of this case, and the strong comity concerns identified by the Ninth Circuit in Arroyo, the Court concludes that these comity concerns outweigh any countervailing considerations of economy and efficiency that might be adversely affected by requiring Mr. Gastelum, if he so chooses, to refile his Unruh Act claim in state court. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Gastelum’s Unruh Act claim and dismisses that claim without prejudice to filing in state court.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim before deciding the merits of a parallel ADA claim when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons.

Minna v. Rowley · filed 2023-02-02(c)(4)

Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim here, where the court has not yet determined the merits of plaintiff’s ADA claim, would be appropriate and consistent with recent Ninth Circuit authority on this issue.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related claims after it resolves the sole claim within its original jurisdiction.

The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Moore · filed 2021-01-05(c)(3)

Accordingly, the sole claim for which original jurisdiction existed has been extinguished and it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Third-Party Claims 1 and 3 under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

When a district court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, dismissal of those claims is without prejudice to their assertion in state court.

Lawrence Murrell, Jr. v. Consiglio · filed 2021-01-07

Thus, although the District Court did not mention them, we construe its order of dismissal as declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. That means that the District Court’s dismissal is without prejudice to Murrell’s ability to assert these claims in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims when it finds no original jurisdiction over the claims offered as the federal basis.

Perez v. Sierra Mountain Express, Inc. · filed 2021-01-12(c)

Given the Court’s finding that it does not have original jurisdiction over these three claims, it also refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the claim raises a novel or complex state-law issue.

Taveras v. New York City, New York · filed 2021-01-17(c)

Here, given the Court’s dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, no circumstances counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law preemption claim. The question whether New York City’s longarm regulatory scheme is in conflict with New York State’s firearm licensing scheme presents a “novel or complex issue of State law” that is better suited for a state court in the first instance.

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

Pitts v. Espinda · filed 2021-01-21(c)

Because Pitts fails to state a claim based on the medical care he received at the OCCC, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims based on that care.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial; reinstatement of federal claims revives the state-law claims.

Lyons v. Gene B. Glick Company, Incorpo · filed 2021-01-22(c)(3)

When the district court dismissed her federal claims before trial, it reasonably relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining state-law claims. See Hagan v. Quinn, 867 F.3d 816, 830 (7th Cir. 2017); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). With some of her federal claims reinstated, however, her state-law claims are revived. See Neita v. City of Chicago, 830 F.3d 494, 496, 499 (7th Cir. 2016).

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

White v. Madison County Jail · filed 2021-01-22(a)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

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

Bell v. Birmingham Board of Education · filed 2021-01-25(c)

Thus, in light of Bell’s failure to plead a plausible federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and this action is due to be dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, particularly when the claim raises unsettled state public-policy questions.

WILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL AIR, INC. · filed 2021-01-29(c)

As the court must not “create or expand [North Carolina] public policy,” Time Warner Entm't–Advance/Newhouse P'ship v. Carteret–Craven Elec. Membership Corp., 506 F.3d 304, 314 (4th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted), it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an alleged state law claim when the plaintiff has not provided enough information to determine whether it states a cognizable claim.

(PC) Kyle Nargiz v. Sherman · filed 2021-02-01(c)

However, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the court to determine if Plaintiff states a cognizable state law claim against Defendants Sherman and Milan for violation of a state law, regulation, or rule. 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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Wilson v. Doe · filed 2021-02-01(c)

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 permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims when the federal claims have failed and the state-law questions are relatively novel.

Kempf v. Hennepin County · filed 2021-02-16(c)

Given these relatively novel questions of state law, we find the better course is to dismiss the MWA claims without prejudice so that they can be taken up by the Minnesota state courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related request after it decides the petition supplying original jurisdiction.

LPL Financial LLC v. Rodriguez · filed 2021-02-18(c)(3)

The Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to § 1367(c)(3) now that the Petition to Confirm has been decided.

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

Sheppard, Charles v. Waterman, Jolinda · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Instead, the court will exercise its discretion to relinquish jurisdiction over plaintiff’s supplemental negligence claims against Waterman, Lee and Edge without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Mincey v. The State of Ohio · filed 2021-02-25(c)

Plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent any state-law claims remain against defendants, is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); and 5. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order adopting the R&R (Doc. 6) would not be taken in good faith.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claims remain pending.

WINTJEN v. DENNY'S, INC. · filed 2021-02-25(c)(3)

Finally, because the Court will deny Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s FLSA claims, it will also reject Defendant’s invitation to “decline to exercise jurisdiction over [Plaintiff’s] PMWA claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.” ECF No. 56 at 23.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claims have been dismissed and the court lacks original diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Eaker v. City of Moss Point, Mississippi · filed 2021-02-26

To the extent Plaintiff may have adequately pleaded a state-law-taxpayer claim, because there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, this Court lacks original jurisdiction to entertain any such claim, and it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such a claim.

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

Lee v. Araujo · filed 2021-03-05(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 and dismiss them without prejudice.

Powers v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections · filed 2021-03-08(c)

Moreover, to the extent that Powers may be attempting to raise state law claims outside the ambit of the VTCA, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim and will, therefore, dismiss them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Best v. Baltimore County · filed 2021-03-09(c)(3)

4 To the extent that Best’s Complaint 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 district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Yeong Lee v. Garcia · filed 2021-03-15(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 when the complaint fails to state a viable federal claim.

Morrison v. Christensen · filed 2021-03-19(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, whatever those claims might be. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims requiring interpretation of state law after dismissing the federal claims before trial.

Bell v. Fountain · filed 2021-03-23(c)(1)

Because Plaintiff’s remaining claims 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 the state law claims. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Pier v. Virk · filed 2021-03-24(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 over state law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yeong Lee v. Pizano · filed 2021-03-24(c)

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

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

Yeong Lee v. Wen Chung Chao · filed 2021-03-24(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 a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Bambu · filed 2021-03-24(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) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a possible state-law claim.

Sink v. Wang · filed 2021-03-25(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any possible supplemental claim related to any state policy violation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Gonzalez v. Jeff Culver Inc. · filed 2021-03-25(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 related state-law claims when retaining them would be inappropriate.

Patel v. US Small Business Administration · filed 2021-03-25(c)

The Court finds that retaining jurisdiction over these remaining claims “would be inappropriate” and that these claims should likewise be remanded. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 357 (1988) (noting that district courts “should consider and weigh. . . the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); see also Schacht, 524 U.S. at 391-92.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims that present novel questions of state law.

Britt v. Hamilton County, Ohio · filed 2021-03-30(c)

The Court declines to resolve these novel questions of Ohio law that are best adjudicated by Ohio courts. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.

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

Isaacs v. Konawa Public Schools · filed 2021-03-31(c)

Here, based on the authority in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims of negligence and violation of the Oklahoma Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims before trial and the state claims require interpreting state law.

Davis v. John and Jane Does · filed 2021-03-31(c)(1)

Because Plaintiff’s remaining claims concern interpretations of Pennsylvania law, and the federal claims have been dismissed before trial, the prudent course is to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Rodgers v. Smith · filed 2021-04-06(c)

Finally, we see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Rodgers’ state-law claims.

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

Garcia v. Mahmoudiani · filed 2021-04-12(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim involves complex state-law and policy issues and its resolution would implicate state-court decisions concerning domestic relations.

Kitchen v. Developmental Services of Nebraska, Inc. · filed 2021-04-19(c)

A claim of IIED against a state-court-appointed guardian for events arising directly from her work in that capacity involves complex considerations of both state law and policy. Further, resolving such a claim necessarily implicates decisions made by a state court touching upon domestic relations. Namely, the placement of individuals subject to a state-court guardianship and the fitness and performance of the individual appointed by the state Probate court to act as a guardian. These factors amount to “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction” over this supplemental claim. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Kitchen’s cause of action for IIED against Defendant Mitchell.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against defendants for whom the complaint states no viable federal claim.

Schroder v. Zarkoff · filed 2021-04-20

... but the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims against Corizon, the entity, and the IDOC nonmedical supervisory Defendants unless Plaintiff first states a federal claim upon which relief can be granted against that particular Defendant.

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

Mendez v. Ada County · filed 2021-04-23(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mendez’s state law claims and dismissing them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (once a district court dismisses the only claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it does not abuse its discretion in dismissing the remaining state law claims).

A court may decline to consider a possible state-law claim under § 1367 when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Dew v. S. Columbia Terrace LLC · filed 2021-05-03(a)

Even if we were to liberally construe Dew’s allegations as seeking relief under state law, because he cannot state a federal claim, we would not consider such a claim.

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

HARRIELL v. CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY · filed 2021-05-04(c)

Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

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

Manuel v. Catlin · filed 2021-05-06(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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the basis for original jurisdiction has ended.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Davidson · filed 2021-05-07(c)

Here, the remaining claims relate to state law. The United States was given the opportunity to explain why the Court should retain jurisdiction but elected not to do so. Therefore, the Court sees no reason to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and recommends declining to do so.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when dismissal of the federal claim against the same defendant weighs against retaining them.

Walker 170829 v. Biddinger · filed 2021-05-11(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, in light of the Court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Defendant Olson, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to Defendant Olson. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendant Olson will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining contract-based damages claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Woltkamp v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association · filed 2021-05-13(c)(2)

Given that federal jurisdiction is based on nominal damages, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). ... The court here exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any contract-based claim for damages for dues plaintiff paid from September 19, 2018 to July 1, 2020.

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

Adams v. Woodson · filed 2021-05-18(c)(3)

Furthermore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any possible related claim under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and dismisses all such claims without prejudice.

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

Jones v. Westchester County · filed 2021-05-18(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)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a contract-based claim that would require interpreting an agreement outside the other claims.

Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association · filed 2021-05-19(c)(2)

Here, the court exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any contract-based claim for damages for dues paid by plaintiff from September 19, 2018 to July 1, 2020.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims based on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of those claims and their relationship to the federal claims.

Ho v. Alexiancam, LLC · filed 2021-05-21(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 even when it exists.

Yeong Lee v. Hanna · filed 2021-05-21(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. 98 Plaza LLC · filed 2021-05-21(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 for the reasons it lists.

Ed Hull v. Lamont Realty Corp. · filed 2021-05-27(c)

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