28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Scott 895268 v. Rewerts · filed 2024-06-14(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). 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)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Escobedo v. Solano · filed 2024-06-18(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 8 claims arising under California’s Unruh Act and Cal. Health & Safety Code 9 $§ 19955 and 19959.

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

Figel 179188 v. Davids · filed 2024-06-21(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction with regard to Defendants Oversmith, Lynn Sandborn, Melissa Sandborn, Davids, Washington, Naple, Heinritz, and Traylor.

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

Coleman v. IEH Autoparts LLC · filed 2024-06-27(c)(3)

Moreover, because Plaintiff has not stated a viable federal claim at this stage, the Court declines, at this time, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Cruz v. Guadalajara · filed 2024-06-28(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Holland v. Flores · filed 2024-06-28(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims drop out, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Kleven v. St. Joseph County · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

These factors instead favor declining jurisdiction under § 1367.

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

Alexander v. Southern Health Partners Inc · filed 2024-06-28(c)

Here, these four factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Jordan v. Carter · filed 2024-07-02(c)

So the Court concludes that even if it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction, it should decline to do so under § 1367(c) and send the matter back to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to weigh case-specific factors when deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Garcia v. Vaca · filed 2024-07-09(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 for the reasons it lists.

Myers v. Domenick's Pizza House, Incorporated · filed 2024-07-10(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 for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Maldonado v. Laptax Services Inc. · filed 2024-07-10(c)

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

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over additional local-law claims early in litigation.

Rubio v. District of Columbia Department of Human Services · filed 2024-07-12(c)

Here, it is very early in the litigation, and it is difficult to determine whether this case raises issues that are solely of local concern. In the present posture, the Court is not convinced that it should exercise its discretion to assert supplemental jurisdiction over these new claims, which seek to add individual capacity Defendants and to hold them personally liable for conduct that the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not tie to any specific, identifiable action that they took.

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

Brooke v. Ram Hospitality Inc. · filed 2024-07-12(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim at an early stage after the claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed.

Spencer v. US Department of Transportation · filed 2024-07-16(c)

At this early stage in the litigation, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain related state-law claims when its factors do not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Priddy v. City of Newton Falls · filed 2024-07-16(c)

In weighing the § 1367(c) factors, the Court finds that none of the factors apply to bar supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Finnegan v. Sherman · filed 2024-07-17

To the extent Finnegan is attempting to assert some sort of tort directly against the State of Indiana, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing the relevant considerations, including whether those claims relate to the remaining federal claims.

Gresham 272603 v. Taylor · filed 2024-07-17(c)

Further, any intended state law claims against remaining Defendant Taylor are unrelated to Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims. The balance of the relevant considerations therefore weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Accordingly, any intended state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in the state courts.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises novel or complex issues and all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Suffolk County Police Benevolent Association v. County of Suffolk · filed 2024-07-17(c)(1), (c)(3)

Plaintiffs have the better argument for two reasons. First, Plaintiffs have met their burden to establish that the statutory exemptions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (3) apply. Second, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s counterclaim would violate interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

Ntamere v. Amerihealth Adminstrators Inc · filed 2024-07-30(c)

The Court agrees that the state law claims should be dismissed pursuant to § 1367(c), and nothing in the objections to the R&R undermines that conclusion.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim presents a novel or complex issue and all federal claims have been dismissed.

Wallace v. FIMCO Inc. · filed 2024-08-01(c)(1), (c)(3)

The court finds this ambiguity as to disposition presents “a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Because the only federal claim has been dismissed, the court finds it appropriate not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Wallace’s state law claim.

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

Dunn v. McThomas Enterprise Group, LLC · filed 2024-08-05(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 for the reasons listed in that subsection.

Davidson v. Jade Wok, Inc. · filed 2024-08-05(c)

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 and remand the case.

Midway Logistics, LLC v. Nguyen · filed 2024-08-05(c)(3)

Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell issued a Report and Recom- mendation, recommending that this case be remanded to Sedgwick County District Court on the grounds that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As a result, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.

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

Bruck v. Ada County Sheriff's Office · filed 2024-08-07(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after weighing judicial economy, the risk of multiple lawsuits, and the need to avoid unnecessary state law rulings.

Stubbs 304356 v. Brown · filed 2024-08-09(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, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Brown will be dismissed. Further, Plaintiff’s reference to an unspecified “state tort” is insufficient to show that any intended state law claim against remaining Defendant Valle is related to Plaintiff’s remaining federal claim against Valle. The balance of the relevant considerations therefore weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Accordingly, any intended state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring those claims in the state courts.

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

Benford v. Meza · filed 2024-08-15(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 after weighing the relevant considerations.

White 525011 v. Barnes · filed 2024-08-16(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction with regard to Defendants Barnes, Wynger, and Schiebner. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendants Barnes, Wynger, and Schiebner will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after disposing of all federal claims.

DOE v. Township High School District No. 214 · filed 2024-08-21(c)(3)

Because summary judgment is granted as to Dolan’s federal claims, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Do- lan’s state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would likely predominate over the remaining federal claim and risk confusing the jury.

Groulx v. Master · filed 2024-08-21(c)

However, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Groulx’s state-law claims for defamation, gross negligence, due process, and equal protection, which have different elements and standards of proof than the remaining federal claim, implicate various legal theories and state-law immunity matters, and would likely predominate over the federal claim and present a significant risk of jury confusion.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state mandamus claim in its discretion.

Friedman v. City of Fairfax · filed 2024-08-23(c)

Exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction.

A court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when none of § 1367(c)’s grounds for declining jurisdiction applies.

Baptist Memorial HealthCare Corporation v. CIGNA Health Care of Tennessee · filed 2024-08-26(c)

Because none of the bases for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) are applicable, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Harris v. Clough · filed 2024-08-28(c)

The Court therefore dismisses Harris’s federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court otherwise declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Harris’s state law claims.

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

Motykie v. Motykie · filed 2024-08-28(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing the relevant considerations.

Ballinger 892160 v. Ige · filed 2024-08-29(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants, if any, will be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to raise those claims in the state courts.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when its statutory factors do not favor declining jurisdiction.

Lagrange v. Eagle, Inc. · filed 2024-09-06(c)

In this case, the statutory factors above do not weigh in favor of this Court remanding the case back to State Court.

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

Patton v. Frank · filed 2024-09-16(c)

Here, because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant Tighe are being dismissed, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to Defendant Tighe. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendant Tighe will be dismissed without prejudice. However, because Plaintiff continues to have federal claims against Defendant Frank, the Court will not dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Frank.

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

NELSON v. CLAUSSEN · filed 2024-09-20(c)

As to the state law claims in Counts VI and VII, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

A district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Taylor v. Washington Department of Corrections · filed 2024-09-23(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Taylor’s remaining state law claims.

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

Garcia 469454 v. Olson · filed 2024-09-25(c)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. ... Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” ... Because Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Olson, Rewerts, and Washington fail to state a claim, his related state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice to his ability to pursue those claims in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss related state law claims when it dismisses the federal claims to which they are tied.

Harper v. Monnig · filed 2024-09-26(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state law claims related to those being dismissed for failure to state a claim are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

UZOMECHINA v. EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-09-26(c)

Moreover, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is also appropriate where, like here: (1) the remaining state-law claims raise a novel or complex state law issue; (2) state-law claims predominate over federal claims; and (3) all claims which the Court has original jurisdiction over have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to remand remaining state law claims when it dismisses the federal claim and the state claims present a novel issue of state law.

Johnson v. Exeter Finance LLC. · filed 2024-09-27(c)

In addition, given that the federal question will be dismissed, and given the novel question of state law in this case, the Court will remand the remaining counts in this matter to the Henrico County General District Court.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when remaining claims raise novel or complex issues of state law or all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Dashiell v. Stevens County, Washington · filed 2024-09-30(c)(1), (c)(3)

There are no remaining claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ remaining claims present novel or complex issues of State law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Carter v. Napp · filed 2024-10-01(c)

Finally, Plaintiff mentions a few provisions of Illinois law, but the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim absent a valid federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(2)–(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate or all claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Zachary v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2024-10-02(c)(2)–(3)

This Order dismisses the only claim that could have conferred original jurisdiction; Zachary only brought a state-law claim for declaratory relief, and the parties are not diverse. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Doc. 1-5, Pet., ¶ 10. And the Court finds Zachary’s non-federal claims “substantially predominate[]” over the claim against the now-dismissed EPA. See id. § 1367(c)(2). Thus, the § 1367 factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims. Accordingly, the Court grants Zachary’s motion to remand.

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

Franco v. Hyatt Corporation · filed 2024-10-03(c)(3)

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

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims, which a court may decline to exercise after dismissing the federal claims before trial.

Frisella v. Dallas College · filed 2024-10-08(a)

Although this court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in this circuit “[t]he general rule is that a court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial[.]” Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. v. Dayco Prods., Inc., 554 F.3d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 2009). Having dismissed the Professors’ federal-law claims, the court in its discretion declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims.

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

Gibson 873946 v. Haggagi · filed 2024-10-10(c)

However, because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Cline and Rurka, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Defendants Cline and Rurka.

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

Peet v. City of Sikeston, Missouri · filed 2024-10-10(c)

Any state law claims contained within the third amended complaint are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Jones v. Heuer · filed 2024-10-14(c)

Because we agree with the district court that Jones has failed to state a valid claim under federal law, we also hold that it did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Jones’s pendent state-law claims for malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior, and indemnity.

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

Dabney 822883 v. Parsons · filed 2024-10-15(c)

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

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

Escobedo v. Thuong · filed 2024-10-16(c)(4)

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

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

Wade v. Greenville Police Department · filed 2024-10-18(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(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no federal claim.

Dertz v. Stiefvater · filed 2024-10-18(c)(3)

Finally, because the amended complaint does not state a federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any putative claims arising under state law. The court will dismiss any state law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

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

Williams v. Greene County, Arkansas · filed 2024-10-21(c)

In the absence of any federal question, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances include evasion of state filing restrictions for high-frequency Unruh Act litigants.

Villalobos v. The Target Range · filed 2024-10-21(c)(4)

The Court finds Villalobos’s state law claims unsuitable for supplemental jurisdiction within the meaning of section 1367(c)(4).

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

Crawford v. Washington · filed 2024-10-21(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)). ... To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

NRRM, LLC v. Endurance Warranty Services, LLC · filed 2024-10-21(c)

Because the only claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction must be remanded to state court consistent with the Settlement Clause, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when a federal claim remains and no reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction is established at the pleading stage.

Stewart v. Turn Key Health Clinics LLC · filed 2024-10-22(c)

As discussed above, there remains a claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The negligence claims are related to the federal claim that remains. At this pleading stage, the Court cannot say that there is an appropriate reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with federal claims.

BARBER v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-10-24(c)

Although there is a common nucleus of operative fact between the federal jurisdictional anchor claims and the state law claims, district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), may nevertheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under Section 1367(a). Here, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. It will therefore dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) factors inform whether a court retains or remands remaining state-law claims, alongside judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and possible forum manipulation.

Mesquite Asset Recovery Group LLC v. City of Mesquite Texas · filed 2024-10-23(c)

To determine whether to exercise jurisdiction or to remand, the court balances “the statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),” “the common law factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” and the threat of “improper forum manipulation.”

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

Martinez-Perez v. Clark · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

Nor did the District Court err by dismissing Martinez-Perez’s state-law negligence claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(3), 1332(a).

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

Peter v. Office of Attorney General New Jersey · filed 2024-10-28(c)(3)

And the District Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Peter’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

After declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a district court may dismiss or remand them, considering fairness, economy, convenience, and comity.

Ramsey v. City of Rancho Cordova · filed 2024-10-29

When a federal district court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, it has discretion to either dismiss the claims or remand them to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when their factual overlap with federal claims does not justify retaining them.

Mulcahey v. Chocolay, Township of · filed 2024-10-29(c)

In the Court’s view, the factual overlap is insufficient to retain jurisdiction over these claims. The Court routinely declines supplemental jurisdiction over State law claims in federal civil rights cases, and it will do so here as well.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when it cannot review the federal claims.

Vaughn v. City of Sikeston, Missouri · filed 2024-10-31(c)

Because the Court has determined it lacks the ability to review her federal regulatory taking claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her related state law claims. Her state claims will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

United States of America v. McKesson Corporation · filed 2024-10-31(c)

Adjudicating the state-law claims would also require the Court to separately interpret false claim statutes in 28 states, precisely the sort of “novel or complex issue of State law” that counsels against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. See § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367 allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Newbury v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2024-11-14

It further recommends that for the same state law claims against Management Defendants, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismiss them instead. ... After reviewing the R&R, the Court overrules the objections and adopts the recommendations to dismiss the remaining state law claims.

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

Acevedo v. Lebec Parts LLC · filed 2024-11-20(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons justify doing so.

Escobedo v. Papazian · filed 2024-11-21(c)(4)

Accordingly, considering the two-step inquiry under § 1367(c)(4), the undersigned concludes that this case presents “exceptional circumstances” such that “there are other compelling reasons for declining [supplemental] jurisdiction” over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

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

Mullings v. Raghnal · filed 2024-11-25(c)(3)

In any event, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing those claims. See Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017) (“A court may [dismiss state law claims] under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”); Maher Terminals, LLC v. Port Auth., 805 F.3d 98, 104 (3d Cir. 2015) (reviewing such dismissals for abuse of discretion).

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

Baidan v. Romanovska · filed 2024-11-25(c)

As Mr. Baidan fails to state any plausible claim for relief under federal law, the Court does not consider his state law claims at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ibbison v. Scagliarni · filed 2024-11-27(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state constitutional claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant when all federal claims against that defendant have been dismissed and those state-law claims do not share facts with remaining federal claims against others.

Famous, Ronnie v. Delforge, Drew · filed 2024-11-27(c)

This defendant-specific approach is appropriate if the state-law claims over which the district court is declining to exercise jurisdiction don’t arise out of the same set of facts as any of the federal claims that remain against other defendants. ... So, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Famous’s medical negligence claims against Dr. Delforge and Acker.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim is novel or predominant, all original-jurisdiction claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons.

Miller Mendel Inc v. Oklahoma City City of · filed 2024-12-02(c)

Further, Plaintiffs’ defamation claim does not raise a novel or complex issue of state law; it does not substantially predominate over the claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction; the other claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction currently remains; and there are no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims cannot proceed and the state law claims predominate.

Rubio v. District of Columbia Department of Human Services · filed 2024-12-03(c)

Here, not only has the Court concluded that granting Plaintiff leave to amend his federal claims would be futile, but twelve of the eighteen counts in Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint arise under D.C. law. The Court, accordingly, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to consider the viability of Plaintiff’s proposed state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice early in litigation when federal equitable claims are dismissed and federal damages claims are stayed.

Laura v. City of Worcester · filed 2024-12-06(c)(3)

These claims are before the Court under supplemental jurisdiction. ... This Court has dismissed Laura’s federal claims for equitable relief and stayed his federal claims for monetary relief, but “the distinction makes no difference” in the Court’s discretion to dismiss state law claims, particularly “this early in the litigation, once the court will not go forward on any federal claims.” ... Accordingly, the Court dismisses all of Laura’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Brown v. Stoss · filed 2024-12-23(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)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to do so.

Block v. Arsh & Jot LLC · filed 2024-12-23(c)(4)

However, as described above, there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Block’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and California Health & Safety Code.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss a putative state law claim without prejudice when the complaint alleges no facts supporting it.

Dertz v. Stiefvater · filed 2024-12-26(c)(3)

Because the plaintiff alleges no facts supporting a claim of negligence, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this putative state law claim. The court will dismiss the state law claim without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that present novel issues of state law after it dismisses the federal claims.

LifeVoxel Virginia SPV, LLC v. LifeVoxel.AI, Inc. · filed 2024-12-30(c)

Since the element of damages in the context of SAFE Notes is a matter of first impression for Delaware law, and since the Court has dismissed the federal causes of action in this complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim of common law fraud, and DISMISSES without prejudice Count V.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it has no claims within its original jurisdiction.

Steven MacArthur-Brooks Estate v. Moreno · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

If there aren’t any claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims.

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

Hobson v. Matucello · filed 2025-01-03(c)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff's state law claims..

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

Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC · filed 2025-01-06(c)(4)

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

When a federal claim is reinstated on appeal, a district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction because it dismissed all federal claims must be reconsidered.

Brown v. City of Tulsa · filed 2025-01-07(c)(3)

Because we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Brown’s First Amendment claim, we reverse its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim and remand for reconsideration.

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

Allen v. Wings Financial Credit Union · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See Barstad v. Murray County, 420 F.3d 880, 888 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). ... Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Allen’s state-law claim. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Count Three without prejudice.

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

Shabazz v. Beuah · filed 2025-01-14(c)(3)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims when it remands the plaintiff’s claims to state court.

STROM v. LOCKWOOD BOAT WORKS INC. · filed 2025-01-14

This action will be remanded, and for the avoidance of doubt, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant’s counterclaims for defamation and abuse of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Cuevas v. Abdo · filed 2025-01-17(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the federal claim providing jurisdiction is no longer before it.

Rosales v. Adir International LLC · filed 2025-01-22(c)(3)

Additionally, because the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over Rosales’s remaining invasion of privacy claim is premised on the existence of a federal claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and because “the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary” where all federal claims have been dismissed, Zimmerman, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 1035, the Court “declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [Rosales’s] invasion of privacy claim,” Reinhardt, 2022 WL 161571, at *3.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when it stays the federal claim for arbitration.

Simon v. National Passenger Corporation · filed 2025-01-29(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. Therefore, Counts I, II, III, and IV are dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file in a Florida state court.

Section 1367(c) does not require a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law class action merely because it proceeds alongside an FLSA collective action; the court may consider judicial economy and overlapping discovery.

Cook v. Dava Marketing LLC · filed 2025-01-31(c)

The court finds there will be judicial economy, and cost savings to the parties by not having the FLSA collective action and state-law Rule 23 class action in separate cases. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, there will also be an economic benefit in the overlapping discovery. Efficiency and economy outweigh DAVA’s arguments. ... The court is not persuaded that it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

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

Cuevas v. Martinez · filed 2025-01-31(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

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

Cuevas v. Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2025-02-14(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims arising under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); and ... Plaintiff's Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's filing of these claims in state court.

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

Cuevas v. Dela's Automotive Inc. · filed 2025-02-14(c)(4)

The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims arising under state law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); and ... Plaintiff's Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's filing of these claims in state court.

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

Bucher v. Zaiger LLC · filed 2025-02-24(c)

Although a district court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over state law “claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy,” the court “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the plaintiffs’ state law claims because at least one of the claims appears to “raise[] a novel or complex issue of [s]tate law”, involving the applicable rules of professional responsibility (see the Eighth Count, a claim by Bucher against Zaiger LLC for violation of wrongful termination of his employment in violation of public policy), and the court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Lampkins v. Center of Science and Industry (COSI) · filed 2025-02-24

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and his state-law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons justify doing so, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Brooke v. American Realty Capital Properties LLC · filed 2025-02-24(c)(4)

This case presents “exceptional circumstances” and “there are compelling reasons,” primarily based on comity and fairness, for declining jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim, which outweigh the other factors. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it dismisses the federal claims against the same defendants.

Clifford 880417 v. Dawson · filed 2025-02-27(c)

Here, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants Dawson, Smith, Washington, King, Berghuis, and Unknown Parties #1, 2, 3, and 4, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any purported medical malpractice claims against those Defendants, and such claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons, including fairness and comity concerns, warrant doing so.

Garcia v. Jay Ramdev Pir, Corp. · filed 2025-03-04(c)(4)

The Court finds Garcia’s state law claims unsuitable for supplemental jurisdiction within the meaning of section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims share some facts with a federal claim but involve broader issues, elements, and facts.

Mitchell, Lewis & Staver, Co. v. Valley Farms Supply, LLC · filed 2025-03-05(c)

The Court finds that an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate here. While the state law claims may derive from some common facts, they involve a broader scope of legal issues, elements, and facts than the SCA claim.

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

Martin 857172 v. Washington · filed 2025-03-06(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an attorney fee dispute only on one of its listed grounds.

Empire United Lines Co., Inc. v. Feldman · filed 2025-03-12(c)

Although plaintiff is correct that a federal court’s “jurisdiction to hear fee disputes and lien claims between litigants and their attorneys” is supplemental, the Second Circuit has held that “the discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction is available only if founded upon an enumerated category of” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1)-(4).5 See Itar–Tass Russian News Agency, 140 F.3d at 448. ... These categories do not apply here.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on that ground while the federal claims can proceed.

A.F. Moore & Associates, Inc. v. Pappas · filed 2025-03-19(c)(3)

Because those claims can proceed, the Court “may not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).”

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

Govan v. Owens · filed 2025-03-24(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 claim.

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

Duran v. Wayne, County of · filed 2025-03-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

And because (1) all federal claims are dismissed, (2) Plaintiff’s state claims involve unsettled and developing state law, and (3) this case is at an early stage, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.

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

AVATAA USA, LLC v. YAMINSKY · filed 2025-03-24(c)

Here, the Court will decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE those claims (Counts Two and Five).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction or when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to do so.

Doe v. Amgen Inc. · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3), (c)(4)

Here the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and (4). Under the former, it is evident that the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Under the latter, the Court considers this is an “exceptional circumstance,” where erring on the side of remand best resolves any potential ambiguity over the Court’s continuing exercise of jurisdiction given the guidance in Royal Canin. Therefore, remand is appropriate.

Section 1367(c) supplies no basis to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims survive and no other listed circumstance clearly applies.

Broil v. Kansas Bureau of Investigation · filed 2025-03-26(c)

Because some of plaintiff’s federal claims survive, the court needn’t reach defendant’s argument. Defendant hasn’t offered any other basis for the court to decline to hear plaintiff’s supplemental claim. See Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912, 935 (10th Cir. 2015) (explaining that district courts “may decline to hear a supplemental claim in enumerated circumstances”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (enumerating circumstances—none of which clearly applies here—where “district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction”).

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

Price v. Tamalpais Union High School District · filed 2025-04-08(c)

Given the early stage of the case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances for compelling reasons, including when a frequent ADA and Unruh Act filer appears to seek federal jurisdiction to avoid California’s procedural barriers.

Sepulveda v. Alzamzami · filed 2025-04-10(c)(4)

Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim “in exceptional circumstances,” when “there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The facts of this case—a frequent filer of ADA and Unruh Act claims seeking federal jurisdiction seemingly to circumvent California’s procedural barriers to such suits—present exceptional circumstances.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, particularly when the remaining local-law claim may raise a novel or complex issue.

Smith v. Saint Elizabeth Hospital Department of Behavioral Health · filed 2025-04-11(c)

The Court will adhere to this practice, particularly because Smith’s negligence claim may implicate “a novel or complex issue of State law” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c): namely, whether D.C.’s worker’s compensation scheme for public-sector employees bars an employee’s negligence suit against his employer based on allegedly having contracted COVID-19 at work. ... Given the unsettled state of District law, lack of briefing, and no remaining claims within this Court’s original jurisdiction, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s negligence claim and dismiss it.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice when it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Allen 707724 v. Johnson · filed 2025-04-14(c)

Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Johnson, Matt, Perry, and Schroeder will be dismissed without prejudice because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Black v. 3 Times 90, Inc. · filed 2025-04-15(c)

Having failed to allege a viable claim arising under federal law, and finding that the parties do not appear to be diverse on the face of plaintiff’s complaint, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Wireman 476220 v. Blankenburg · filed 2025-04-28(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, Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants will be dismissed, and 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 when any one of its four listed grounds is met.

Moore v. The City of Columbus · filed 2025-04-29(c)

Importantly, the four § 1367(c) factors are 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(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

CRANDALL v. NORTHERN LIGHTS EASTERN MAINE MEDICAL · filed 2025-04-29(c)

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) and United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims against EMCC.

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

Doe No. 3 v. City of Woburn · filed 2025-04-29(c)(1), (c)(3)

But this Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” or when a state law claim “raises a novel or complex issue.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(1), (c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Doe’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 does not provide a basis to decline jurisdiction over a state-law claim when CAFA independently supplies subject matter jurisdiction, even after the federal claim fails.

Hoffman v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2025-05-01(c)(3)

Ordinarily, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental subject matter jurisdiction given the failure of the only federal law theory asserted by the plaintiffs. In this case, however, the plaintiffs have also adequately alleged subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), so the Court has no basis to decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims when the statutory factors favor remand after the federal claims have dropped out.

Prime Healthcare Services - Mesquite v. Cigna Healthcare of Texas Inc · filed 2025-05-14(c)

The statutory factors support remanding the case. Although the remaining state-law claims do not raise novel or complex issues of state law, the state claims substantially predominate because no federal claims remain, and the federal claims have been dismissed.

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

Glover v. Collier · filed 2025-05-22(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims against Officer Longoro or Officer Longoria regarding the bus accident.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when possible novel or complex issues do not substantially predominate over continuing federal claims.

Jackson Municipal Airport Authority v. Reeves · filed 2025-05-23(c)

Although future dispositive motions could reveal “novel or complex issue[s] of State law,” any such issues do not “substantially predominate[] over” the federal causes of action, which are in fact moving forward. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

BLF Land, LLC v. Frerich · filed 2025-05-23(c)(1)

First, subsection (c)(1) applies because NPGCD’s counterclaims raise complex issues of state law.

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

Estate of Dean Henry Hoffmann v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections · filed 2025-05-23(c)

Regardless, because the Court dismissed the only federal claim against Dr. DeBlanc, it declines to take supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against her.

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

Williams v. Furman · filed 2025-05-23(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after weighing the relevant considerations, including judicial economy.

Harris 642284 v. Howard · filed 2025-05-30(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction against Defendants Storey, Batho, Teneyck, Desormeau, Dotson, Mills, Shunk, Slater, and Voorhees. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims against these Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims; when the court does not indicate that it exercised that discretion, dismissal of those claims may be vacated and remanded.

Webb v. Miller-Saltarello · filed 2025-06-03(c)(3)

While a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), over remaining state law claims, the district court did not indicate that it was exercising that discretion here. We vacate the dismissal of Webb’s Oregon state law claims and remand to give the court an opportunity to exercise its discretion.

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

Watson v. Peters · filed 2025-06-09(c)(3)

The court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law cause of action.

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

Hodroff v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2025-06-10(c)

Hodroff has not filed 11 amended complaint, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 12 ||his state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

(PS) Wu v. Sacramento Unified School District · filed 2025-06-16(c)(3)

Because plaintiff has not stated a federal claim, the Court will not at this time exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s potential state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint fails to allege a federal cause of action.

El Shaddai v. Knoxville TVA Employees Credit Union · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims as the Complaint fails to allege any federal cause of action.

Section 1367(c) permits, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when one of its listed factors is present.

Reyes v. City of New York · filed 2025-06-18(c)

As the highlighted word “may” indicates, the presence of one of the statute’s enumerated factors “does not mean that dismissal [of related state or local claims] is mandated.”

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate or raise a novel or complex issue of state law; an unsupported assertion of those grounds does not preserve the argument.

Stroud v. Mitchell (CONSENT) · filed 2025-06-23(c)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the claims substantially predominate or raise a novel or complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff does not explain why or how his state law claims predominate or raise a novel or complex issue of state law, he simply states it is so.

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

Escobedo v. Carrillo · filed 2025-06-26(c)(4)

Escobedo’s Unruh Act and California Health and Safety Code construction-related accessibility claims are dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims when it transfers the federal claim to another district.

Moore v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

Having determined that Moore’s Title VII claim should be transferred to New Jersey, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claims brought pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).

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

EVANS v. DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS · filed 2025-07-21(c)

Considering that the Complaint fails to state a plausible federal claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to defer deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a counterclaim until the grounds for doing so are clearer.

Keen v. MDB Behavioral Health Services LLC · filed 2025-07-24(c)

Either way, under § 1367(c), a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any counterclaim if it meets one of the given criteria, including “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... The Court concludes that the motion should be denied without prejudice. ... While the Court reserves judgment on such issues, it seems more prudent to wait as did courts in cases like Sotelo.

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

Dixon v. McCoy · filed 2025-07-28(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims as the Complaint fails to allege any federal cause of action.

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

OLSZEWSKI v. HUTCHINS · filed 2025-07-29(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) and United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against Defendants.

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

Perkins v. Katke · filed 2025-08-05(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when a high-frequency litigant uses federal court to evade California’s procedural requirements and fairness and comity favor early dismissal.

Brooke v. Paligroup Management LLC · filed 2025-08-07(c)(4)

Like Arroyo and Vo, there are exceptional circumstances in Plaintiff’s case because, by filing in federal court, Plaintiff attempts to evade and render “toothless” the “procedural strictures” that California put in place to limit high-frequency litigants from placing too high a financial burden on California businesses.

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

WILLIAMS v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC · filed 2025-08-07(c)

Having dismissed Williams only federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over employer counterclaims in an FLSA suit when precedent disfavoring those counterclaims supplies an exceptional circumstance.

Hale v. K.T.G. USA, Inc. · filed 2025-08-14(c)(4)

Having reviewed the relevant authorities, the Court concludes that, even if it could assert supplemental jurisdiction over Ruth’s counterclaims, it should decline to exercise such jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ... As a result, the Court can and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims raised in Ruth’s Answer [8], due to the binding precedent which encourages courts to be hesitant in permitting employer counterclaims in FLSA suits.

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

Goben v. Vital Core Health Strategies · filed 2025-08-14(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Fentje.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not permit a court to decline jurisdiction over state law claims that independently fall within its original diversity jurisdiction.

Patel v. City of New York · filed 2025-08-18(c)(3)

While the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where its jurisdiction rests on a federal question, Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998); Torres v. City of New York, 248 F. Supp. 2d 333, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the City Defendants’ argument ignores that this Court retains original jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that it finds unrelated to the federal claim.

Kruger v. Wexford Health Sources Inc · filed 2025-08-20(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Wexford for alleged negligent hiring and retention. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff’s Monell claim against Wexford is based on the alleged delay in referring him to an off-site eye doctor for an eye examination. (Doc. 34 at p. 7, ¶ 1). The Monell claim does not relate to negligent hiring and retention.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that substantially predominates over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Boxum v. Tokyo Electron America · filed 2025-08-21(c)(2)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if “the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). This statute gives the Court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims it does not have original jurisdiction over.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when overlap between state and federal claims and the cost of duplicate proceedings weigh against declining it.

Harris v. Carvana, LLC · filed 2025-08-21(c)

And the complaint also reveals some factual overlap between the claims. At this stage of the litigation, the Court is not able to say the differences in proof or any other circumstances outweigh the inefficiencies of duplicate proceedings in different jurisdictions.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when its grounds for declining jurisdiction do not warrant doing so.

Cerdes v. United States · filed 2025-08-25(c)

Second, the § 1367(c) factors do not call for this Court to decline its ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.