28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of the state-law claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Hernandez v. North Main Service · filed 2021-06-04(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) does not authorize a court to decline original jurisdiction over a proper federal claim.

Costello v. Schey · filed 2021-06-17(c)

Judge Fricke properly concluded that § 1367(c) does not authorize the Court to decline original jurisdiction over a proper federal claim.

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

Valencia v. Van Nuys Equities, LLC · filed 2021-06-24(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 state-law claims for the reasons it lists.

Back v. Oban Renaissance, LLC · filed 2021-06-25(c)

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

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

Gomez v. Albertsons Companies, Inc. · filed 2021-06-28(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 over a related state-law claim even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Robinson v. Brewer Properties LLC · filed 2021-06-30(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 state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Yeong Lee v. Kefalinos · filed 2021-06-30(c)

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

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

Cox v. Jones · filed 2021-07-07(c)

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

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

Corso v. Hamilton County, Ohio · filed 2021-07-07(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 “includes an explicit provision permitting the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when that court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Weeks v. Portage County Executive Offices, 235 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir. 2000). Because this Court is granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the statutory factors favor doing so, including when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Payton v. Town of Maringouin · filed 2021-07-08(c)

Here, those factors weigh strongly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The state law malicious prosecution claim appears complex and was the subject of a disputed motion for partial summary judgment.

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

Jin Lee v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC · filed 2021-07-09(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff cannot plead a plausible federal claim.

Dickson v. Entergy Arkansas LLC · filed 2021-07-12(c)

Unless Dickson can plead a plausible federal claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law slander claim.

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

Luna v. Moorpark-Studio City Limited Partnership · filed 2021-07-15(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 even when it exists.

Yeong Lee v. Coastal Commercial Investment Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-07-18(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 a related state law claim after considering the claim, the governing state law, and its relationship to the federal claim.

Ho v. Kang · filed 2021-07-18(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)(3) permits a district court to defer screening supplemental state-law claims until the plaintiff has viable federal claims.

Hayes v. City of Las Vegas · filed 2021-07-19(c)(3)

Finally, the Court declines to screen plaintiff's state-law tort claims until it is clear that plaintiff has viable § 1983 claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction and calls for consideration of the state law issues and federalism concerns.

General III v. City of Chicago · filed 2021-07-13(c)

In addition, consistent with the usual practice in the Seventh Circuit, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims (Counts I, II, and III). Moreover, even if the Court did have original jurisdiction over Count IV, the factors set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) would militate against the exercise of discretionary supplemental jurisdiction in this instance as the motion presently before the Court turns on the application of state law to a municipality’s application of its rules and guidelines.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim against a defendant when the plaintiff has not stated a federal claim against that defendant.

Lockridge v. Larson · filed 2021-07-20(c)(3)

Because the plaintiff has not stated a federal claim against Hepp, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim the plaintiff may seek to bring against him. 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Soto v. The State of New York · filed 2021-07-20(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it dismisses the complaint.

Francis v. The State of New York · filed 2021-07-20(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 state law claims when it has resolved the claims within its original jurisdiction and the state claims raise complex, unresolved questions of state law that favor resolution in state court.

Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC · filed 2021-07-21(c)

Two bases exist for me to deny supplemental jurisdiction. First, I have resolved the FLSA claims over which I had original jurisdiction. Second, the plaintiffs’ state law claims raise complex and 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) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims that are neither novel nor substantially predominant when no compelling reason supports declining jurisdiction.

KOSHA, LLC v. ALFORD · filed 2021-07-28(c)

These claims are not novel or complex, and they do not substantially predominate over Plaintiffs’ securities fraud claim. Moreover, the claims against Dlugolenski are inextricably intertwined with Plaintiffs’ claims against Alford, including Plaintiffs’ claim under § 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Court finds no compelling reason to decline jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when one of its four listed grounds applies.

Ho v. 8147 Arroyo, LLC · filed 2021-07-29(c)

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

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

Truong v. Lazben Investment Co · filed 2021-07-29(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims.

Harris v. Arteaga · filed 2021-07-30(c)

Additionally, to the extent Harris intends to file a state tort claim of IIED against the ADA, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and to require the plaintiff to show why that jurisdiction should be exercised.

Cleveland v. 3210 Gage, LLC · filed 2021-08-02(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in the exercise of its discretion.

Hubbard v. Service Employees International Union Local 2015 · filed 2021-08-06(c)(2)

The court declines to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s six state law claims against SEIU.

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

Back v. Gluck · filed 2021-08-06(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal claims even if subsection (a) would otherwise confer it.

Doe 1 v. American Federation of Government Employees · filed 2021-08-11(c)

Even if the Court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ non-federal claims under section 1367(a), it will decline to do so under section 1367(c) with respect to any claim that lacks a common nucleus of operative fact with any surviving federal claim in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no federal claim remains.

Coleman v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs have no federal claim, the sole basis for its jurisdiction, the Court declines to rule on whether the Defendants are liable for the state law claims alleged in the Amended Complaint. The Court will relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim for the reasons it lists, even when section 1367(a) supplies jurisdiction.

Back v. Haas · filed 2021-08-13(c)

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

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

EHC Aspen Properties, LLC v. CCUR Holdings, Inc. · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)

A district court may decline “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).

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

Williams v. James · filed 2021-08-19(c)(3)

Williams’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice because Williams has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Jurisdiction over any state law claims is denied. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Kwon v. Earle · filed 2021-08-19(c)

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

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

Portia Mason v. The Lovesac Company · filed 2021-08-19(c)

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

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

Kim v. Kingsway Investment Inc. · filed 2021-08-20(c)

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

Before deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court may order the plaintiff to show why it should exercise jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Back v. McDonalds Corporation · filed 2021-08-20(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, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code section 19955, et seq., and negligence claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Stoia v. Yee · filed 2021-08-27(c)(2)

On this record, the court declines to exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and conversion.

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

Finnegan v. Wework Inc. · filed 2021-08-27(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff is asserting.

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

Finnegan v. Chase Bank · filed 2021-08-27(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff is asserting.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise novel or complex issues of state law or substantially expand the case beyond the federal claims.

Davis v. Wayne County Board of Canvassers · filed 2021-08-29(c)

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ state-law claims would substantially expand the scope of this case beyond that necessary and relevant to the federal claims. The state- law claims also raise novel and complex issues of state law. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims this action and dismisses Counts Nine and Ten.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claims are no longer viable, the case has not progressed substantially, and dismissal will cause no particular prejudice.

HILL v. United States · filed 2021-08-30(c)

I will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such a dismissal is appropriate where, as here, the only federal claim is no longer viable, the case has not progressed substantially, and no particular prejudice will result.

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

Tate v. Suminoe Textile of America · filed 2021-08-30(c)(3)

However, as correctly observed by the magistrate judge, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction “if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having reviewed the Report and finding no clear error, the court agrees with, and wholly adopts, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in the Report (ECF No. 19), which is incorporated herein by reference.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering whether exercising it is warranted.

Cox v. Younan · filed 2021-09-01(c)

In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when deciding whether to vacate an earlier remand order after an appellate reversal.

Quintana v. Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners · filed 2021-09-01

For the reasons stated in the record, the Court denies the Motion, because: (1) other than arguing that the Court has the raw judicial power to vacate its remand order, Defendant Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners in Santa Fe, New Mexico (“Santa Fe County”) does not explain adequately under what authority the Court can reconsider and vacate its remand order; and (ii) even if the Court has the authority to reconsider its remand order, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law appeal of a local zoning decision when the state review procedures raise questions about whether a federal court can hear it.

Brantley County Development Partners, LLC v. Brantley County, Georgia · filed 2021-09-02(c)(1)

Regardless of whether a writ of certiorari or general appeal is appropriate for the rezoning decision, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Kwon v. Amalfitano · filed 2021-09-03(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 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant when no federal claim remains against that defendant.

CLARK v. WAMBOLD · filed 2021-09-10

And, in the absence of a federal claim against Mr. Gonzalez, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims against Mr. Gonzalez.

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

DUGLAS v. HOANG · filed 2021-09-14(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 state law negligence claims after dismissing the federal claims.

CARR v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2021-09-15(c)

To the extent that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint may be read to assert state law negligence claims, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction because there is not complete diversity between parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Yiun v. Wander Brothers, LLC · filed 2021-09-20(c)

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

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

Schittler v. Kilgore · filed 2021-09-22(c)

I also decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Schittler’s state law claim of slander against Dooley. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) makes dismissal of a supplemental state law claim discretionary, and federal claims still pending against other defendants can support addressing that claim.

Saleh v. Bin Zayed Al Nahyan · filed 2021-09-22(c)(3)

But dismissal under section 1367(c)(3) is discretionary, not mandatory, ... and Count VIII alleges a conspiracy with other defendants that have not yet moved to dismiss the federal claims that supply jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, especially when related state suits are pending.

Arvie v. Vidrine · filed 2021-09-22(c)

Because plaintiff’s federal claims against the Vidrines should be dismissed, and because the plaintiff has two state court suits pending, which involve the same factual allegations and state law causes of action, this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims, which should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Bryant v. Royce Oil, Inc. · filed 2021-09-27(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 considering the circumstances of the case, the nature of the claims, governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Vera v. Armani Investments, LLC · filed 2021-09-28(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 decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for the reasons it lists.

Valencia v. 14230 Ventura LLC · filed 2021-09-30(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 state-law claims for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Vera v. Bent · filed 2021-09-30(c)

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

Section 1367(c) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims merely because they require different proof or allow different damages when none of its four grounds applies.

Diaz v. Doctors Best Weight Loss & Wellness Center, LLC · filed 2021-09-30(c)

Accordingly, Defendants fail to demonstrate that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, where the Court concludes that all the claims asserted arise from the same set of facts, and none of the four situations under § 1367(c) applies.

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

Moultrie v. Wright · filed 2021-10-05(c)

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

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

Marshall v. Wells Fargo & Company · filed 2021-10-06(c)(3)

And in the absence of any federal question, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Marshall’s state law claims.

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

DAVISTON v. BID PROPERTIES, LLC · filed 2021-10-19(c)

Having dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims Daviston seeks to assert against the Defendants for fraud.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when § 1367(a) supplies jurisdiction.

Frazier v. Coffey · filed 2021-10-22(c)

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

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

Amber Machowski v. La Fayette Plaza Investors L.P. · filed 2021-10-22(c)

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

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

Schantz v. Deloach · filed 2021-10-26(c)

The district court was within its discretion to decline jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims, and there is no basis for disturbing that decision on appeal.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when its conditions are met.

Penny v. Bastuba · filed 2021-10-26(c)

Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

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

Brooke v. Midwest Heritage Inn of San Bernardino Inc. · filed 2021-10-27(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 non-federal claims.

Webb v. United States Veterans Initiative · filed 2021-10-29(c)(3)

As before, the Court declines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the non-federal claims, and the proposed pleading adds nothing new to the surviving federal claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain a related state-law zoning appeal when the grounds for declining supplemental jurisdiction do not warrant remand.

Northville Venture Partners, LLC v. Northville, City of · filed 2021-11-04(c)

It does not appear that Northville Venture’s zoning appeal raises novel or complex issues of state law. Nor does it appear that the zoning appeal predominates over Northville Venture’s federal constitutional claims. Those federal constitutional claims remain pending. The Court is unaware of any compelling circumstances for declining to exercise jurisdiction.

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

Evans v. 7520 Surratts Road Operations LLC · filed 2021-11-16(c)

The Court is not convinced that the Complaint, even broadly read, states a medical malpractice claim; and in any event, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims at this time.

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

Union Square Supply, Inc. v. De Blasio · filed 2021-11-16(c)

Because this state constitutional claim “raises a novel or complex issue of [New York] law” and the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and dismisses it without prejudice to renewal in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, especially when the state claims present novel constitutional questions.

Kowall v. Benson · filed 2021-11-17(c)

But when a federal court dismisses all pending federal claims before trial, as the district court did here, it is usually best to allow the state courts to decide state issues. Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). And this case is no exception. Indeed, declining supplemental jurisdiction is particularly important here, because the parties raise novel questions of state constitutional law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over undeveloped claims under a state constitution.

Henderson v. Quiros · filed 2021-11-17(c)

Because these claims are undeveloped under Connecticut law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims brought under the Connecticut Constitution.

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

Warren v. Attorney General for the State · filed 2021-11-18(c)

Because summary judgment on Warren’s federal claims was proper, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.

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

Pagan v. Government Agencies · filed 2021-12-02(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 court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims.

Suady v. Wook · filed 2021-12-15(c)

To the extent plaintiff has any state law claims, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over such claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all claims within its original jurisdiction are time-barred.

Fernandez v. Board of Pemberton Township · filed 2021-12-16(c)(3)

Because the only claims over which the District Court had original jurisdiction—that is, her federal claims—were time-barred, the District Court could properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that might be timely.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when no federal claims remain and the litigation is at an early stage.

Spanos v. Vick · filed 2021-12-20(c)

Application of the § 1367(c) factors to Spanos’s case supports remand. Spanos has disavowed the federal claims mentioned in his complaint, and only a state law claim remains. This case remains in the early stages of litigation.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims are directed to arbitration and dismissal.

Reilly v. Avery Auto Sales Inc · filed 2021-12-21

The court will not continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these purely state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Frazier v. Avocado Mattress LLC · filed 2023-10-20(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 related state law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Ventura v. Anabi · filed 2023-10-23(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing the relevant considerations.

Roseman 248250 v. Wolthuis · filed 2023-10-23(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)). 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 the reasons it lists.

Cuevas v. E4 Investments, Inc. · filed 2023-10-25(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 accompanying an ADA claim.

Villalobos v. Solis · filed 2023-10-25(c)

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

Section 1367(c) does not require a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims merely because a federal claim survives.

Bey v. Listerhill Credit Union · filed 2023-10-25(c)

In any event, dismissal would still be appropriate even if Ingram Bey’s federal claim survived, because the survival of a federal claim would not require the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ingram Bey’s state law claims.

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

Villalobos v. Darghalli · filed 2023-10-26(c)

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

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

Williams v. Saint Anthony Hospital · filed 2023-10-30(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remands the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Middlebrook 351947 v. Pelto · filed 2023-10-31(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)). 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 for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Elliott v. DDS Discount LLC · filed 2023-11-01(c)

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

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

Garcia v. Williams · filed 2023-11-03(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 based on the circumstances of the case, the state law issues, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Brooke v. Osib LA Downtown Properties LLC · filed 2023-11-08(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Cox v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc. · filed 2023-11-08(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim and dismiss it.

Hunter v. Buchholtz · filed 2023-11-09(c)(3)

The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and it will be dismissed.

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants who face no federal claims.

Serio v. Brown · filed 2023-11-13

By contrast, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim against the other defendants for whom there are no other federal claims.

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

Williams v. Department of Social Services State of Louisiana · filed 2023-11-15(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s common law fraud, negligence, and conspiracy to commit fraud claims against all Defendants be DISMISSED ...without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction are dismissed, considering statutory and common-law factors.

Hernandez v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated · filed 2023-11-17(c)(2)-(3)

Therefore, considering the § 1367 factors and the common-law factors, as applied to this case, as well as the outcomes in the cases more closely resembling this one, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and remands this case to state court.

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

Hernandez v. La Cocinita Restaurant Inc. · filed 2023-11-20(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) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claim has not been dismissed with prejudice and leave to amend has been granted.

Escamilla v. Echelon Communities, LLC · filed 2023-12-04(c)

The Court has yet to dismiss Plaintiffs’ FHAA claim with prejudice. Leave to amend has been granted. Thus, declination of supplemental jurisdiction is unwarranted at this time.

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

Williams v. Food Bank Company · filed 2023-12-12(c)(3)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Rodriguez v. Dwyer · filed 2023-12-14(c)

As there are no federal claims pending against Attorney Dwyer, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims asserted against him.

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

Whittenburg v. Lake County Jail · filed 2023-12-20(c)(3)

Even if he had stated such a claim, I would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and would instead dismiss it without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction.

Snelling v. Edgewater Mental health · filed 2023-12-21(c)(3)

The Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that the Court may have had under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 based on the Court’s original jurisdiction to hear federal constitutional claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims when its factors favor remand.

Delatte v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association · filed 2023-12-22(c)

With respect to the § 1367(c) factors, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of remand.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction without further explanation when it cites that provision.

Dru Choker v. Pet Emergency Clinic, P.S. · filed 2023-12-26(c)(3)

The court was not required to provide an explanation for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when, as here, it cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Granados v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Counsel Office · filed 2024-01-08(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may seek to assert. 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after weighing statutory and common law factors.

ZL & SKY LLC v. City of Joshua Texas · filed 2024-01-10(c)

Upon review, the Court finds that the balance of the statutory and common law factors heavily weighs in favor of the Court declining to retain jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claim.

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

Haynes v. Turner Bass & Assoc. · filed 2024-01-11(c)

Finally, the district court acted within its wide discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Haynes’s state law claims.

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

Crenshaw v. Staton Healthcare Service (INMATE 2) · filed 2024-01-11

5. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; 6. This case is DISMISSED.

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

Garcia v. Nampa City Police Department · filed 2024-01-11(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.

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

DeBella v. Topeka Fire Department · filed 2024-01-16(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 a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that may raise novel or complex state-law issues; potential jury confusion when it is tried alongside federal claims is an additional reason to decline.

Dobronski v. Russo · filed 2024-01-16(c)

This Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claim may raise novel or complex issues of state law. 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 claim. Thus, the potential for jury confusion is yet another reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim.

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

GORRIO v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SHORTER · filed 2024-01-16(c)

The Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims, having dismissed all of Mr. Gorrio’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when no claim remains within its original jurisdiction.

Acevedo-Rodriguez v. Cuevas-Natal · filed 2024-01-19(c)(3)

Because there is no original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s First Claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Second Claim.

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

Dobronski v. First American Home Warranty Corporation · filed 2024-01-24(c)

This Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that “raises a novel or complex issue of state law” or that “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Here, Plaintiff’s state-law claims may raise novel or complex issues of state law. Further, 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. The potential for jury confusion is yet another reason for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. ... Accordingly, the Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over any state-law claims in this action.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims that duplicate federal constitutional claims.

Isreal v. Chovanec · filed 2024-02-01

Under all of these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s unreasonable seizure claims under Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Escobedo v. Jensen & Pilegard · filed 2024-02-16(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Cunningham v. Bonwich · filed 2024-02-20(c)

And the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Dr. Bonwich.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to leave a state-law claim for state court when no federal claim supports jurisdiction.

Smith v. Osvaldik · filed 2024-02-22(c)(3)

Because the Court finds no federal question jurisdiction, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim for breach of contract under state law, he must pursue that claim in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) does not allow a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related insurance claims when no listed ground for declining jurisdiction applies.

Minsky v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company · filed 2024-02-23(c)

And section 1367(c) does not apply because Plaintiffs’ run-of- the-mill breach-of-insurance-policy claims do not raise “a novel or complex issue of [s]tate law,” the Florida Pen claim does not “substantially predominate[] over” the Wright claim, the Wright claim has not been dismissed, and Florida Pen fails to establish “exceptional circumstances” or “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain state-law claims while their connection to surviving federal claims remains plausible, subject to later relinquishment of jurisdiction.

Hall v. G.T.L. · filed 2024-02-29(c)

Here, the Court will allow the state law claims against Hughes, Wills, and G.T.L. to proceed for the time-being because it is not clear if the limitations on content accessible via the Plaintiff’s tablet are caused by Defendants Hughes and Wills’ directions, or if the content is not accessible because G.T.L.’s product is actually defective or misrepresents what is available.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when trying them with federal claims would risk juror confusion and complicate jury instructions.

Schopper v. Sullivan · filed 2024-03-01(c)

The claims in this case may derive from a “common nucleus of operative fact,” but the Court finds that an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate here. The presence of the state law claims creates a significant risk of juror confusion and would seriously complicate jury instructions.

Section 1367(c) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when none of its four statutory grounds is present.

Alera Group, Inc. v. Houghton · filed 2024-03-05(c)

Nor does the Court find that any exceptions apply that would influence the Court to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This is not a novel or complex issue of state law; the claim would not substantially predominate over Alera’s claims; the Court has not dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; and there are no exceptional circumstances justifying declining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims after weighing the statutory and common-law factors for declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Gomez v. NTX Auto Group, Incorporated · filed 2024-03-06(c)

Considering all of the statutory and common law factors, the Court declines to remand the state law claims under Section 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court transferring an action for improper venue to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an accompanying state-law claim.

Cunningham v. Headstart Warranty Group, LLC · filed 2024-03-06

In doing so, the Court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NCTSA claim and transfers Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as to these Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a complex state-law claim after it resolves all claims within its original jurisdiction.

SILLA v. HOLDINGS ACQUISITION CO., L.P. AND RIVERS CASINO · filed 2024-03-06(c)(1), (c)(3)

Consequently, due to that nature of Silla’s breach of contract claim, and because the Court has resolved all of Silla’s other claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Silla’s breach of contract claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(1), (c)(3).

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

Pryor v. City of Pontotoc Police Department · filed 2024-03-13(c)

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

Section 1367(a) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff seeks only official-capacity injunctive relief.

Black Bear v. Lingren · filed 2024-03-27(a)

Because Black Bear only alleges claims against the defendants in their official capacities for injunctive relief, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over Black Bear’s state-law claims.

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

Quinn v. Powell · filed 2024-03-31(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant Corey Dennard’s counterclaim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state wage claim when differences from a federal FLSA collective action risk jury confusion and the relevant factors favor declining jurisdiction.

Greer v. Trinity Health Corporation · filed 2024-04-01(c)

Due to the differences between the federal and state claims in this case, which may complicate the matter and give rise to a risk of jury confusion, the Court finds that the balance of relevant factors weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Michigan minimum wage law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a cross-claim when the original-jurisdiction claim has been dismissed and the cross-claim raises complex issues of state law.

Miller v. Eisen · filed 2024-04-03(c)(1), (c)(3)

Even if Eisen’s answer qualified as a cross-claim, or even if the Court excused Eisen’s untimely request to file such a claim, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claim with original jurisdiction (Plaintiff’s Complaint) has been dismissed and Eisen’s request for attorney’s fees would involve complex issues of state trust law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim, leaving those claims dismissed without prejudice.

Plaquemines Parish Ventures LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Council · filed 2024-04-04(c)

Having dismissed the sole basis of subject-matter jurisdiction, only state law claims remain. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), this Court declines to exercise supplemental ... jurisdiction over the remaining claims. They are therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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

DAVIS v. ROSENBAUM · filed 2024-04-08(c)

Because I have dismissed Davis’s federal claims, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal leaves the case below the diversity amount threshold.

Hale v. Woodward · filed 2024-04-09(c)

The only other way the Court could exercise jurisdiction over Hale’s remaining claims is through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Given this presumption, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims in this case.

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

Ayala v. Spokane Teachers Credit Union · filed 2024-04-12(c)(3)

However, if a district court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state WLAD claim.

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

Sowell v. Annucci · filed 2024-04-15(c)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action for the reasons set forth in the June 26, 2023 order, and declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims.

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

Maina v. Somerset County Jail · filed 2024-04-23(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Dietz v. Department of Social Services Child Support · filed 2024-04-30(c)

To the extent that Dietz seeks to allege a claim for fraudulent inducement under state law, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over his state~ law claim; his state-law fraudulent inducement claim is dismissed without prejudice without considering the merits of the claim.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the federal claim supporting jurisdiction cannot proceed.

CJ Tropical Corp. v. Golden Produce LLC · filed 2024-05-01(c)(1)

Without PACA, there is no federal question. If plaintiff is not able to renew its motion showing the requisite notice, supplemental jurisdiction also will not be exercised. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1); Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 306 (2d Cir. 2003).

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

Burch v. New York State · filed 2024-05-01(c)(3)

To the extent that Plaintiff intended to assert state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006).

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental state law claims to the court’s discretion when the related federal claims are dismissed.

White 690863 v. Blair · filed 2024-05-07(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)). With respect to Defendants Woodin, Bowne, and Unknown Party, 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.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Heffernan v. Nationstar Mortgage · filed 2024-05-08(c)

In light of the fact that Plaintiffs have dismissed the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, and after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

Hodge v. Ramsaroop · filed 2024-05-15(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Bhattacharya vy. Bd. of Regents of Southeast Missouri State Univ., 1:22-cv-00043, 2022 WL 17844457, at *10 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 22, 2022) (referencing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); see also Barstad v. Murray Cnty., 420 F.3d 880, 888 (8th Cir. 2005).

Section 1367(c) requires a district court deciding whether to remand supplemental claims to consider all four statutory factors.

Hunter v. Page County, Iowa · filed 2024-05-17(c)

In sum, a district court presented with a motion to remand must consider the four statutory factors in its supplemental jurisdiction analysis.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after weighing judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and the burden of deciding state-law issues.

Jones 529086 v. Juarez · filed 2024-05-17(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, all state law claims are dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Mister Bailey v. SWC Roxbury, LLC · filed 2024-05-22(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, and the court may order the plaintiff to explain why that jurisdiction should be exercised.

Dunn v. Weho SM, LP · filed 2024-05-22(c)

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

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of a state law claim to the district court’s discretion when the related federal claim is dismissed.

Ashwood 862639 v. Maloney · filed 2024-05-29(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 Court has determined that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Marsh is subject to dismissal. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s policy directive claim against Defendant Marsh without prejudice.

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

Tackett v. Montana Dept. of Public Health and Human Services · filed 2024-06-04

Because we hold that the district court properly found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Providence and Dr. Chaganur and properly declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, we need not reach this issue.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the federal ADA claim becomes moot and is dismissed early.

Uriarte-Limon v. Wassilian · filed 2024-06-05(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 permits a court to retain related state-law claims when no compelling reason warrants declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Canfield v. Grant County Sheriffs Office · filed 2024-06-05(c)

Because Plaintiffs have not identified a compelling reason for this Court to use its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims, Plaintiffs are not entitled to remand.