28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Semien v. Bergman · filed 2025-09-02(c)

In this case, the court is dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is DECLINED.

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

Short v. ZBS Law LLP · filed 2025-09-03(c)

Moreover, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) based on the previous assertion of now-dismissed federal claims, given the early stage of the case and the substantial predominance of state law claims.

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

Mendoza v. O-Nex Inc. · filed 2025-09-05(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of factors including fairness, convenience, and the complexity of state law.

Cauble v. Ellis · filed 2025-09-11(c)

Therefore, having considered the relevant factors, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim.

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

Robinson v. Home Towne on Bellfort · filed 2025-09-12(c)

Because this case is at an early stage, it is appropriate to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when judicial efficiency and comity favor doing so.

BETTER PENNSYLVANIA, INC. v. PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION · filed 2025-09-16

Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is warranted not only by concerns for judicial efficiency, but to encourage comity between the federal and state systems.

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

Hamlet Garcia, II v. Cruz · filed 2025-09-17(c)

Garcia does not specifically challenge the without-prejudice dismissal of the state-law claims but, regardless, we discern no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Glaze v. Morgan · filed 2025-09-23

The Court declines to exercise supplementation jurisdiction over the state claims against Defendants Koveleski and Ragland, and those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving all claims within its original jurisdiction.

BROWN v. CARTER · filed 2025-09-29(c)

Having resolved all claims within its original jurisdiction, the Court exercises its discretion and relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Brown's state law negligence claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims concerning plans with no claim within its original jurisdiction after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Da Silva Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, P.C. v. Aetna · filed 2025-09-29(c)(3)

As to the non-ERISA plans, there are no claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims as to the non-ERISA plans.

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

Brooke · filed 2025-10-01(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed or the remaining claims raise novel or complex issues of state law, with comity, economy, convenience, and fairness informing that choice.

Curtis v. Inslee · filed 2025-10-06(c)

As for the state-law claims against PeaceHealth, we uphold the district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The district court concluded that it had “dismissed all claims over which it ha[d] original jurisdiction,” and that the remaining state-law claims “raise[] novel or complex issues of state law,” two of the important factors that trigger a court’s discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 n.2 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). In exercising that discretion, the court appropriately noted that the decision served the value of comity and possibly also the values of economy, convenience, and fairness.

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

Cuevas · filed 2025-10-14(c)(4)

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

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

The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-10-15

As in the 7014 case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses plaintiff's state-law claims without prejudice.

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

LaCroix · filed 2025-10-20(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff LaCroix’s federal claims—the basis for original jurisdiction here—will be dismissed, “and it is not in the interest of judicial economy or comity for th[is] Court to hear and determine [his] state law claims,” this Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 3 and 4 as against Defendants Simpson and Savit.

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

Sims · filed 2025-10-24

It further recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sims’ pendant state law claims based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and that these claims be dismissed without prejudice as well. ... Because the plaintiff has not objected to these, and his only objection misstates the R&R, the court will accept and adopt the R&R in its entirety.

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

Cheeks · filed 2025-10-29(c)

To the extent that Cheeks raises any related claims under state law, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and will dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law negligence claim against a private driver.

Asiam · filed 2025-10-30(c)(2)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the factors favor remand.

Oakberry SD UTC, LLC v. Acai · filed 2025-10-30(c)

Here, the § 1367(c) factors weigh in favor of remand to the state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) lets a court decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against one defendant after dismissing all original-jurisdiction claims against that defendant, even if such claims remain against another defendant.

Patterson · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

Moreover, this discretion can be exercised on a defendant-by-defendant basis. ... And this is true even if claims within the court’s original jurisdiction remain against other defendant(s), as they do in this case given that claims remain pending against Officer Pacheco.

Section 1367(c)(1)–(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims raise novel or complex issues or substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lowrey · filed 2025-11-05(c)(1)-(2)

In sum, Plaintiff fails to provide a basis under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) or (2) for this Court to exercise its discretion to remand this case to state court prior to addressing the federal claims alleged in his Complaint.

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

Emrit · filed 2025-11-07(c)

To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint attempts to allege state tort claims (see Dkt. No. 6 at 10–11), they too are unintelligible2 and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Ganesh · filed 2025-11-10

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises a novel or complex issue or when no federal claims remain.

Baltas · filed 2025-11-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(3) and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an unresolved state constitutional question best answered by state courts.

Askew · filed 2025-11-24

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim because “questions of state constitutional law are best answered by the state courts.” Jd.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would substantially predominate or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons.

Crockford · filed 2025-11-21(c)

So I decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Cuscianna and dismiss them without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Smith v. BloomTV LLC, Monica Manley, and Devon Kerns · filed 2025-12-01(c)

In the absence of a plausibly-pleaded federal FLSA claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, including for purposes of Ms. Smith’s request for default judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

WHITMORE · filed 2025-12-02(c)

Having dismissed Whitmore’s federal law claims, the Court will not 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 when the relevant factors favor doing so.

Lau · filed 2025-12-05(c)

Because the relevant factors weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction, the Court declines to do so and dismisses Lau’s state law LEDL and oral breach of contract claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state wage claim when differences from the federal claim do not present novel or complex state law issues or cause the state claim to predominate.

Tyger · filed 2025-12-17(c)

These differences, although potentially significant for the availability of a remedy, are relatively minor in terms of instructing the jury and presenting evidence. ... The current facts do not support declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint states no cognizable federal claim.

Carroll · filed 2025-12-29(a)

A federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims that “form part of the same case or controversy” as a federal clam, but a plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. ... Here, Plaintiff has not stated any federal claims, therefore, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.

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

Russell · filed 2026-01-08(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims, even if the Court were to assume that plaintiff had stated a colorable state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining claim after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kucera · filed 2026-01-29(c)

Having considered these factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Hoppers’ de minimis breach of contract claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction on specified grounds; the court retained jurisdiction where none warranted declining it.

Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C. v. The Smith Law Firm · filed 2026-02-02(c)

And here, the narrow issue at hand—specific performance—is neither a novel nor complex issue of state law, nor does it predominate over the claims between Beasley Allen and the Defendants, which remain in active litigation. ... And finally, there is no other compelling reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction here, as it makes little sense to sever this narrow and simple issue for refiling and resolution in a Mississippi state court. Therefore, this Court will not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Nolan · filed 2026-02-10(c)(3)

The court both declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and likely lacks jurisdiction due to the domestic relations exception.

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

Fornara · filed 2026-02-10(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a Court may have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. However, the Court may decline this jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Since litigation is still in the early stages, and the parties are Washington State entities or located in Washington, it is in the interest of comity, convenience, and economy to allow the state court to adjudicate any remaining state claims. Therefore, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when no other basis for federal jurisdiction is offered.

Yangjiang Xinhe Houseware Co., Ltd. v. Telebrands Corp. · filed 2026-02-11(c)

As the Court is dismissing the federal claims, and as Plaintiff has not offered another basis for jurisdiction over the state-law claims, the Court will dismiss those claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a proposed state law claim that would stand alone against a defendant in a broader federal case.

Harden-Rivera · filed 2026-02-17(c)

However, at that point it would be a freestanding state law complaint against Ms. Kunkle grafted on to a broader federal case, and this Court would decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction to any potential cause of action against Ms. Kunkle deriving from the Illinois constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Thus, because amendment would either be futile or insufficient to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, the Court dismisses the “All Defendants” claims against Ms. Kunkle with prejudice, in addition to its dismissal of the § 1983 claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims overlap with and duplicate federal claims.

McGreevy · filed 2026-02-24(c)(2)

However, I see compelling reasons to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims. First, the state law claims overlap with and duplicate the federal securities claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

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

Alvarez · filed 2026-02-24(c)

To the extent Alvarez is invoking a state-law claim, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over such a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining state claims raise novel and complex issues after all federal claims have been dismissed, subject to a weighing of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Williams v. Addison Cmty. Schs. · filed 2026-03-02(c)

Although efficiency considerations weigh in favor of the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, those interests do not outweigh the comity interests here. ... But because this case presents just such a rarely occurring circumstance, it was not a proper exercise of discretion to take on Williams’s Michigan Fair and Just Treatment claim and related theory of respondeat superior liability.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law or all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Gottesman · filed 2026-03-02(c)(1), (3)

A court may, however, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” or “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(1), (3); Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 31–32 (2025). Both of those grounds apply here.

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

BROWN · filed 2026-03-09(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claims, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Brown’s state law claims.

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

Ahenakew · filed 2026-03-11(c)(2), (c)(3)

Given the dismissal of Ahenakew’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Ahenakew’s state law claims, which “substantially predominate” over Ahenakew’s federal claims in his Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) and (3).

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

Russell · filed 2026-03-12(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental Jurisdiction over his state law claims, even if the Court were to assume that plaintiff had stated a colorable state law claim.

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

Whitten · filed 2026-03-16(c)(3)

Given the lack of any viable federal claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any asserted state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Sorcan · filed 2026-03-16(c)

The Court will, therefore, dismiss all federal claims with prejudice and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sorcan’s remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims in light of the early stage of litigation and the nature of the remaining claims.

Powell · filed 2026-03-27(c)

Furthermore, given the early stage of the litigation and the nature of the remaining claims, the Court agrees that declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law breach of contract claim and counterclaim is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Williams v. Crystal Springs Apartments LLC · filed 2026-03-30(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs have not alleged any plausible federal claim, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of the case’s early stage and the novelty of the state-law claim.

Wallman · filed 2026-03-31(c)

Based on the early stage of these proceedings, and the novelty of Wallman’s state-law claim, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wallman’s state-law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain state claims against a defendant whose federal claim survives while declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims against defendants whose federal claims have all been dismissed.

Tillery · filed 2026-04-16(c)

Because the claim against Rodela in her individual capacity survives, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims as to Rodela. As to the remaining Defendants, whose federal claims have been dismissed in their entirety, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims against them.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related nonfederal claims when judicial economy favors resolving them with federal claims and no strong state interest counsels otherwise.

Wiggins v. District of Columbia · filed 2026-04-28(c)

Section 1367(c) permits the Court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” in some cases, but the Court will not exercise its discretion to do so here. See City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997). Judicial economy favors resolving these claims together and no strong state interest counsels otherwise.

Section 1367(c) permits a court abstaining from federal claims under Younger to decline jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Fajjaji · filed 2026-05-05(c)

While Fajjaji also raises state-law claims, the Court will likewise abstain from exercising jurisdiction over those claims at this time pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to dismiss state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim.

Terry · filed 2026-05-22(c)

She also recommended dismissal of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Therefore, the court reviewed the Report for clear error and, finding none, adopts the Report by reference in this Order.

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

Atzili v. Islamic Republic of Iran · filed 2026-05-29(c)

“[G]uided by consideration of the factors enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),” Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass’n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1265–66 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Not only has the Court “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” but most of the claims “raise[] a novel or complex issue of State law” in seeking to fit the operation of modern cryptocurrency platforms into traditional torts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

AKINS · filed 2026-06-05(c)(3)

Since the MSPA claim is subject to dismissal, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims for the reasons explained by the Magistrate Judge.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after disposing of the federal claims, considering fairness, comity, and judicial economy.

Few · filed 2026-06-09(c)(3)

Here, the Shanaghan factors militate dismissal without prejudice of Mr, Few’s state law claim. ... Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Few’s state law claim and will dismiss it without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when local-law claims substantially predominate over federal claims or raise novel or complex local-law issues.

National Rifle Association of America v. Nra Foundation · filed 2026-06-24(c)

As for the non-trademark D.C.-law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because (1) the D.C.-law claims would “substantially predominate[]” over the NRA’s federal trademark claims; and (2) several of the claims raise “novel or complex issue[s] of [D.C.] law.”

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

Gaylor v. Thompson · filed 1996-09-13(c)

However, whether defendants violated the state’s administrative code is a question of state law that the parties have not briefed and that I will not address in this opinion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim presents an unsettled question of state law or compelling reasons of comity.

American Society of Consultant Pharmacists v. Patla · filed 2001-02-27(c)(1), (c)(4)

The Court finds that both reasons for declining supplemental jurisdiction over Count II are present here. ... The IPAC claim would require determinations of state law regarding decisions by state officials that, even if they fall within our judicial province, are as a matter of comity better left to state courts. The Court, therefore, will exercise its discretion and deny supplemental jurisdiction over Count II. ... Alternatively, the Court dismisses Count II without prejudice pursuant to its discretion under Section 1367(c)(1) and (4).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after considering the statute’s four grounds or an applicable abstention doctrine.

Wong v. Minnesota Department of Human Services · filed 2016-04-19(c)

International College of Surgeons dictates that the court may reach this decision only after considering the four factors enumerated in the federal supplemental-jurisdiction statute or after determining that one of the abstention doctrines applies.

Section 1367 permits a district court to hear state claims related to federal claims and to decline jurisdiction over state claims against a defendant for whom no viable federal claim has been stated.

Mintun v. Corizon Health Inc · filed 2021-06-30

The Court will liberally construe the Complaint to include claims of negligence against the individual defendants,1 but the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims against Corizon unless Plaintiff first states a federal claim upon which relief can be granted against that particular Defendant.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; retaining a state law claim can be an abuse of discretion when the relevant factors favor remand.

Hamilton v. City of Lott, TX · filed 2023-12-15(c)

When, as here, a consideration of the statutory and common law factors favor remand and there is little in the record that supports the district court’s decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel issue, the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons.

Watson Memorial Spiritual Temple of Christ D/B/A Watson Memorial Teaching Ministries, Charlotte Brancaforte, Elio Branca · filed 2024-06-28(c)

Relevant to the matter before us, this case presents a res novo issue of state law, and the federal court dismissed the claim over which it had original jurisdiction. Moreover, this matter involving a state court judgment, Louisiana constitutional provisions, a state inverse condemnation judgment against a state political subdivision, and the issue of whether mandamus may lie to enforce that state judgment presents such “exceptional circumstances.”

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are barred.

Norkin v. Fla. Bar · filed 2018-04-26(a)

The Court declines the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing the federal claims and in light of a difficult state-law issue.

Estate of D.B. v. Thousand Islands Cent. Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-08-29(c)(1), (3)

The Court need not, and does not, reach this thorny issue because the Court declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for a listed reason without stating its reasons.

Kamel v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC · filed 2007-04-20(c)

The district court did not abuse its discretion... when it refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kamel’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances after considering federal statutory policy, judicial economy, and comity.

Slaughter v. Alpha Drugs, LLC · filed 2012-11-30(c)(4)

The Court need not resolve the question of whether or not the counterclaim forms part of the same “case or controversy” as the Plaintiff’s claim for purposes of Section 1367(a) because, assuming the counterclaim falls within the scope of Section 1367(a), in light of the exceptional circumstances of this case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims when they predominate or when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Crockett v. Mayor of Columbia · filed 2013-07-11(c)(2), (c)(3)

Since the common law claims against the individual D.C. defendants predominate, ... the Court, having no choice but to dismiss the claims against the removing defendant, will remand what remains of this case to Superior Court.

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

Torres v. E-Land World Co., ltd. · filed 2017-04-20(c)

The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and grants the motion to remand as to these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when the federal claim fails to support subject matter jurisdiction.

Betancourt v. Total Property Management · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim related to a violation of AB 3088, because the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the claim under the CARES Act.

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

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

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

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that largely tracks a surviving federal claim when separate proceedings would be inefficient and risk inconsistent outcomes.

Escamilla v. Echelon Communities, LLC · filed 2024-02-28(c)

Requiring parallel proceedings in different courts for Plaintiffs’ largely identical state and federal claims would ensure inefficiency and invite inconsistent outcomes. ... Echelon’s request that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction is therefore DENIED.

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

Calad v. Cigna Healthcare TX · filed 2002-10-31(c)(3)

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

Roark v. Humana Inc · filed 2004-01-27(c)(3)

Section 1367(3) allows a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been eliminated.

Craft Smith, LLC v. Ec Design, LLC · filed 2019-05-17(a)

Because all federal claims have been eliminated, and this is not a diversity case, the court elects not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over EC's remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Accordingly, the remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing the federal claims against the same defendants.

Ortolaza ex rel. E. v. Capitol Region Educ. Council · filed 2019-05-23

Plaintiff's federal claims under § 1983 against the CREC Defendants will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, this time without leave to replead. As for Plaintiff's state law claims against those Defendants, the Court again declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and those claims will again be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain related state law claims when there is no compelling reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Beverick v. Chelan County · filed 2019-10-18(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.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims that raise novel state law issues and would predominate over the federal claims.

Bunger v. Hartman · filed 1994-03-10(c)

It certainly would be in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, and comity for the state court to hear the common law claims as to both Hartman and Texaco in that proceeding. In sum, applying Section 1367(c), the court concludes that supplemental jurisdiction should not be exercised over the common law claims in this case.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising a novel or complex issue of state law; the court could not assess that ground without knowing the claim’s state-law basis.

North Penn Transfer, Inc. v. Stationers Distributing Co. · filed 1994-10-20(c)

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law. ... However, this Court cannot tell whether § 1367(c) is applicable to the present case because Plaintiff does not indicate on what state law it bases its intrastate undercharge claims. ... Accordingly, at this stage the Court will not dismiss Plaintiffs intrastate undercharge claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after the claims supporting original jurisdiction fall out of the case.

Taylor v. Lotus Development Corp. · filed 1995-10-20(c)(3)

In determining whether to retain or to remand the instant case to state court, this Court must consider a variety of equitable factors, including: “convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, and considerations of judicial economy.” ... In weighing these various factors, this Court finds that remand is the proper course of action.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims raise a novel or complex state-law issue, substantially predominate over federal claims, or present exceptional circumstances that provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Green v. Zendrian · filed 1996-02-14(c)

Subsection (c) of § 1367 sets out four categories of circumstances in which a district court may, in its discretion, decline jurisdiction over state claims. This case presented three of the four: a complex and novel issue of Maryland law, (§ 1367(c)(1)); state claims that substantially predominate over the federal claims (§ 1367(c)(2)); and exceptional circumstances that provide compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction (§ 1367(c)(4)).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over pendent claims after dismissing the federal claims, but the court must expressly consider whether to exercise that discretion.

Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Education & Training, Inc. · filed 1996-05-03(c)

In dismissing the appellant's origination claim, however, the District Court did not expressly exercise its discretion to maintain or decline jurisdiction over the pendent claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Without some statement of the District Court regarding its discretion under that statute, we hesitate to review its decision on the merits, which may involve difficult matters of local law.

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

Doe v. Vernon Parish School Board · filed 1996-06-04(c)

We decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims, if any. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its governing law is unsettled and trying it with the federal claims risks jury confusion.

DeLoreto v. Ment · filed 1996-08-02(c)

Thus, under section 1367, we have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims or to decline to do so. ... We agree. Plaintiffs’ state-law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is better left to the state courts for resolution. Accordingly, we GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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

Mathews v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 1996-12-02(c)

While the Court believes that the state and CERCLA claims do arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts, the Court finds that the state claims would predominate over the CERCLA action. ... The Court therefore refuses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants.

Bogan v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance · filed 1997-02-05

In light of the above factors, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Bogans’ state law claims.

After federal claims are dismissed, § 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, including the presiding judge’s familiarity with the case.

Powell v. Alexander · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)

Now that the case has been transferred to my docket, however, the balance of factors is somewhat different, because I do not share that same familiarity with the proceedings. Absent that familiarity, and after careful consideration of the Cohill factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3)–(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal issues remain and judicial economy does not favor keeping the case.

Moss v. Hutchens Law Firm, LLC · filed 2021-06-21(c)(3)–(4)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the federal claims have been dismissed and the remaining claims raise novel state-law issues; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness inform that decision.

Baker v. Blue Valley School District USD 229 · filed 2021-07-15(c)

Given these considerations, the Court finds that at least two exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) apply, and judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, see Wittner, 720 F.3d at 781, counsel in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the sole federal claim is dropped, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Crystal Lake Community Association, Inc. v. Zilis · filed 2021-07-19(c)

As previously noted, while the Court is not required to remand the case here, it may nevertheless decline to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim.

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

Whalen v. Morice · filed 2021-09-17(c)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and the remaining state law claims are best addressed in the forum from which they arose.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, guided by statutory factors and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Book v. LaSalle Parish School Board · filed 2021-10-01(c)

The statutory factors set forth by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and the common law principals of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guide district courts when determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendant state law claims. ... The Court finds declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims is proper under the above-mentioned factors.

Section 1367 allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Wise v. Inslee · filed 2021-10-25(c)

While this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the decision is discretionary. ... In the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and will address only the challenges to federal law.

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

Thomas 254903 v. Burt · filed 2021-10-25(c)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction. ... Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). ... Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Donovan v. Vance · filed 2021-12-17

As an initial matter, while this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the decision is discretionary. ... In the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims and will address only the challenges to federal law.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when case-specific considerations such as comity favor remand.

Stay Away From the Cans, LLC v. Town of Johnston · filed 2023-10-20(c)

Turning to Stay Away’s state law claims, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. ... As a matter of comity, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remand the state law claims for further review in Superior Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when only state law claims remain after the federal claims are dismissed, weighing the statutory factors and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Chauvin v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-11-15(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over non-diverse state law claims. ... Here, the statutory factors weigh in favor of dismissing Plaintiff’s state law claims. Specifically, the second and third factors weigh heavily in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because only state law claims remain pending before this Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after disposing of the federal claims before trial, with comity among the relevant considerations.

Donato v. Town of Scituate · filed 2023-11-15(c)

When a case has been removed to federal court and the federal claim is disposed of before trial, it is within this Court’s discretion to decide whether to keep the remaining state-law claims or remand them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In the interest of comity and a lack of independent jurisdiction, the Court will decline jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state- and local-law claims and remand them to the state court where the plaintiffs had chosen to bring them.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law wage claims when hybrid collective and class procedures, distinct state law analysis, juror confusion, and judicial economy weigh against hearing them together.

Happ v. First Management Services, LLC · filed 2023-11-21(c)

Thus, weighing these considerations, as well as considerations of convenience and fairness to the parties, the Court finds the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims inappropriate. The Court, therefore, declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on a balance of judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and avoiding needless decisions of state law.

Brown 271566 v. Cioffi · filed 2024-01-02(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). ... Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining related claim when federal policy, comity, and judicial economy favor dismissal.

Gullum v. Endeavor Infrastructure Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-01-18(c)

To the extent that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's breach of contract claim with respect to the EIH notes, it exercises its discretion to dismiss that claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it resolves the only claim within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Cully Corporation, Inc. v. North Slope Borough · filed 2024-02-14(c)

Because the Court has decided the only claim for which it had original jurisdiction, the Court has discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and defenses. Judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants strongly favor remanding the remaining issues to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim when comity and substantial questions of state law favor resolution in state court.

Keller v. Monson School Committee · filed 2024-03-22(c)

Therefore, both the interests of comity and application of the principle that substantial questions of state law are better addressed by state courts counsel that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the aspect of Plaintiffs’ MCRA claim that is predicated on violation of the state constitution.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after balancing judicial economy and the avoidance of multiple suits against the need to decide state law issues; distinct proof and immunity questions may support dismissal.

Gresham 272603 v. Awomolo · filed 2024-03-28(c)

After balancing these factors, the Court will dismiss all Plaintiff’s state law claims against any Defendant. The state law claims unnecessarily complicate proofs and raise state law immunity questions that are different from federal immunity questions.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons arise from materially different claims and underlying plans.

Neurological Surgery, P.C. v. Aetna Health Inc. · filed 2021-01-04(c)(4)

A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “in exceptional circumstances, there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Compelling reasons to decline exist here. Plaintiff’s 400-page Complaint details 200 total claims: 4 inconclusive, 12 non-ERISA, and 184 ERISA. There are 145 implicated health plans: 3 inconclusive, 8 non-ERISA, and 134 ERISA – and no indication that any non-ERISA plans are “substantially identical” to any ERISA ones.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over closely related state-law claims when declining jurisdiction would waste judicial and litigant resources.

Jenkins v. Obion County Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-01-14(c)(4)

Likewise, in this case, the facts underlying the federal claims and the state law claims are not only the same but are inextricably intertwined and declining to accept jurisdiction over the state law claims would not be the best use of judicial or litigant resources.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act claims because Tennessee’s preference for a state forum is an exceptional circumstance.

Moser v. Etowah Police Department · filed 2021-01-25(c)(4)

The Court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction “in exceptional circumstances [where] there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ... Because Tennessee’s legislature clearly prefers that TGTLA cases are handled by their state courts, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over them.

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

Conway v. Vannoy · filed 2021-02-02(c)

But the second and third factor weigh strongly against retaining jurisdiction, as the “state law claims predominate over the non-existent federal claims” and this court “dismissed all federal claims” Enochs, 641 F.3d at 159.

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

Jackson v. Solo Group Management Inc. · filed 2021-02-11(c)

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

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over a federal claim and comity and forum shopping provide compelling reasons to decline.

Jackson v. Solo Group Managment, Inc. · filed 2021-02-16(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering comity and whether the state claims predominate.

Taylor v. Villegas · filed 2021-03-01(c)

Here, the Court finds the factors contained in section 1367(c) favor remand.

Section 1367(c)(4) may permit a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over difficult, unresolved state-law issues when pandemic conditions provide exceptional circumstances.

Cassell v. Snyders · filed 2021-03-08(c)(4)

Section 1367(c)’s fourth consideration—”other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction” in “exceptional circum- stances”—may also apply. ... So in a case like this, the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic give federal courts reason to think twice be- fore wading into important and difficult state-law issues that the state’s own courts have yet to explore.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) allow a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate and compelling reasons favor leaving them to state court.

Louisville Gas and Electric Company v. Isaac W. Bernheim Foundation · filed 2021-03-22(c)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In this case, (2) and (4) are proper bases for this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Esordi v. Macomb Township · filed 2021-03-23(c)

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claims would predominate over the federal claim asserted in this action. The state-law claims could also raise novel and complex issues of state law.

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

Kurtz v. Lupica · filed 2021-03-24(c)(4)

Absent “exceptional circumstances” or “other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction,” the Court will not decline supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when they raise novel and complex state law issues, may predominate over federal claims, or risk jury confusion.

Seals v. Wayne, County of · filed 2021-03-25(c)

Since Plaintiff’s federal and state law claims arise out of the same incident and share common operative facts, the court is permitted to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, for the reasons explained below, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims could create jury confusion, raises a novel and complex issue of state law, and could predominate over the federal claims. Therefore, the court will dismiss Count II and Count III without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for a novel state-law issue or exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons, but those grounds did not apply to these state-law claims.

Rositano v. Freightwise, LLC · filed 2021-03-26(c)

Unlike the claims in Donnell, however, Rositano’s state law claims do not “raise[] a novel . . . issue of state law” or present “exceptional circumstances . . . [or] other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction” here.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage-law claims from five states despite their number when the court finds no exceptional circumstances counseling against jurisdiction.

Jahagirdar v. The Computer Haus NC, Inc. · filed 2021-04-20(c)(4)

Therefore, even though the vast majority of the claims in this case are state law claims, the Court does not find that there are exceptional circumstances at play that counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction. As such, Defendants’ motion that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is denied.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when they could predominate over federal claims and their distinct legal theories risk confusing the jury.

Howland-Bolton v. City of Detroit · filed 2021-05-05(c)

So pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), in the interest of economy, fairness, and convenience, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III, IV and VII.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction and the remaining state and local claims substantially predominate.

Green v. NYU Langone Medical Center · filed 2021-05-12(c)(2), (c)(3)

Accordingly, two of the statutory circumstances under which the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction are present: all of the federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction have been dismissed and the state and local law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims. As no independent ground of jurisdiction exists, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining state and local law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law discrimination claims to avoid jury confusion where the federal and state claims have different causation standards.

Loos v. BASF Corporation · filed 2021-05-21(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case appear to be nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); Moor v. Cty. of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 716 (1973); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994); see also Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc., 663 F.3d 806, 818 (6th Cir. 2011) (observing that the causation standard for a discrimination claim under the ADEA is different than that for the same claim under the ELCRA). Therefore, pursuant to § 1367(c), Plaintiff's claims under ELCRA are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (c)(3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate or all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Garcia v. Bhakta · filed 2021-07-07(c)(2), (c)(3)

Upon review of the docket, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims for two reasons. First, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the only claim that fell within the scope of the Court’s original jurisdiction—his ADA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Second, Plaintiff's state law claims entirely predominate over the claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction. Jd. § 1367(c)(2). The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims and REMANDS this case to the state court from which it was removed.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act accessibility claim by a high-frequency litigant when fairness and comity favor applying California’s heightened pleading requirements.

Villegas v. Wong-One, LLC · filed 2021-07-15(c)(4)

Thus, district courts should consider fairness and comity when determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related claims under the Unruh Act. ... the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise novel issues of state law or substantially predominate over a possible federal claim.

Schmitt v. Page · filed 2021-08-01(c)(1), (c)(2)

The Court finds that the state-law claims in the Amended Petition both raise novel issues of state law and substantially predominate over what may (or may not) be a combined state-and-federal claim. ... Assuming it has federal-question jurisdiction over some portion of Count 8, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in General Schmitt’s Amended Petition.

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

Vorgitch v. City of Harper Woods · filed 2021-09-10(c)(4)

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

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

Chaney v. Keego Harbor Police Department · filed 2021-09-10(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances justify it, but an independent basis for original jurisdiction can still sustain the claim.

Cota v. Porven, Ltd. · filed 2021-09-20(c)(2), (4)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the discretionary provisions of § 1367(c)(2) and (4) clearly justify a declination of supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim. Nevertheless, that finding is not claim-dispositive if another independent basis for original jurisdiction exists.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise novel or complex issues of state law or substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Coyote Springs Investment, LLC v. State of Nevada, on relation to its Division of Water Resources, Department of Conserv · filed 2021-09-28(c)(1), (c)(2)

Retaining jurisdiction to adjudicate pendent state law claim is within the discretion of the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Here, the Court finds that the claims raised by Plaintiffs substantially predominate over the claims which the Court had original jurisdiction over and the claims raise novel and complex issues of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1,2). Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the amended claims and remands them to state court.

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

Dalfio v. Assef · filed 2021-09-30(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise a novel or complex issue and whose presentation alongside federal claims would confuse the jury.

Krause v. Kelahan · filed 2021-10-07(c)(1), (c)(4)

Both § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4) warrant declination of supplemental jurisdiction over Krause’s NYHRL gender discrimination and hostile work environment claims against the Individual Board Members.

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

Hudson v. City of Allen Park · filed 2021-10-13(c)

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ state-law claims would predominate over the federal claims asserted in this action. The state-law claims could also raise novel and complex issues of state law. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state- law claims in this action and dismisses any state-law claims asserted in this action without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and when novel state-law claims would predominate.

Carlson v. McCuaig · filed 2021-10-22(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, provides that district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when: 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©. ... Here, Plaintiff’s § 1983 count asserted against Defendant McCuaig is the sole basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. As set forth above, this Court is granting summary judgment in favor of McCuaig as to that count because he is entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, this Court is ... dismissing the only claims over which it has original jurisdiction. In addition, even if that were not the case, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s novel state-law claims, that would predominate over the federal claim asserted against Defendant McCuaig.

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

Frazier v. Aesos Oil, Inc. · filed 2021-11-01(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 for novel or complex state-law issues, substantial predominance, dismissal of all original-jurisdiction claims, or exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons.

Ghadiri v. Every Day Happy Day Outlet · filed 2021-11-01(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when comity and California’s interest in regulating such claims provide compelling reasons and the claim substantially predominates over an ADA claim because of the disparity in remedies.

Dalfio v. Simco-Robinson LLC · filed 2021-11-08(c)

The Court finds that comity and deference to California’s interest in monitoring and regulating Unruh Act complaints present compelling reasons to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over his ADA claim due to the disparity in remedies available.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims involving complex issues distinct from the federal claims.

Williams v. City of New York · filed 2021-11-18(c)(4)

Those issues are sufficiently complex and entirely different from the federal claims. Exercising my discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), I decline to assume jurisdiction over the state law claims against the Vos’.

Under § 1367(c)(4), a district court may abuse its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction after its federal-claim ruling has effectively resolved the related state claim, because judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining jurisdiction.

Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Rosas · filed 2021-12-10(c)(4)

Given the very late stage at which the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction in this case, these values overwhelmingly favored retaining jurisdiction over Arroyo’s Unruh Act claim, and the district court therefore abused its discretion in dismissing that claim.

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

Villalobos v. Burrolandia Mexican Grill Incorporated · filed 2023-11-07(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim may evade California’s procedural requirements for high-frequency litigants.

Raglin v. Pawn Zone Corp · filed 2023-11-16(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction for exceptional circumstances with compelling reasons; invoking procedural rules for high-frequency disability litigants does not establish such circumstances when the plaintiff is not alleged to be one.

Chapman v. Inn at Schoolhouse Creek in Little River · filed 2023-12-08(c)(4)

LR Schoolhouse has not shown the existence of exceptional circumstances that warrant dismissing the state claims.

Section 1367(c)(2)-(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they predominate and all federal claims have been dismissed.

Hablutzel v. Fayette County IL · filed 2023-12-14(c)(2)-(3)

Because all federal constitutional claims are dismissed and the state law claims predominate, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances supply compelling reasons, including fairness and the likely effect on judicial economy.

Lee v. The Vanderbilt University · filed 2023-12-14(c)(4)

Ultimately, the Court finds in is discretion that the reasons for declining jurisdiction significantly outweigh the interests in exercising jurisdiction, and so under Section 1367(c)(4), the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the State-Law Claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons favor doing so, including the evasion of state requirements for frequent accessibility litigants.

Block v. California-Fresno Investment Company · filed 2023-12-15(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. ... 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 it identifies exceptional circumstances and finds compelling reasons under the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Sepulveda v. Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC · filed 2024-01-05(c)(4)

To summarize, in determining whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the Court applies the two-step inquiry articulated in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). “[A] district court must: (1) sufficiently explain why the circumstances of the case are exceptional under § 1367(c)(4); and (2) show that the balance of the Gibbs[1] values provides compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in such circumstances.”

Section 1367(c)(1) and (4) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim presents a novel issue or exceptional circumstances supply compelling reasons; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity inform the decision.

Gibson v. Oconee County Sheriffs Office · filed 2024-02-23(c)(1), (c)(4)

As noted by the Magistrate Judge a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or if “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (4). Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this case. The Court finds that this claim does not present a novel issue. Nor does the Court find that “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when state-law questions predominate and the interests of judicial economy, fairness, and comity favor adjudication in state court.

Starsail Adventures, LLC v. Iredell County · filed 2024-02-26(c)(2), (c)(4)

Accordingly, the Court finds that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims would be inappropriate at this time because the state courts have an interest in these claims and are arguably better positioned to resolve them; state law questions predominate because they likely lead to the same relief Plaintiffs’ request in this case; and because some of the relief Plaintiffs request has already been granted in the state court, rendering similar action from this Court moot.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims that present novel questions and receive only cursory briefing.

Are You Listening Yet PAC v. Henderson · filed 2024-03-11(c)(1), (c)(4)

The court is empowered to decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction, however, in cases involving a “novel or complex issue of State law,” or where “there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Both factors apply here. First, no court has adjudicated the validity of these statutory provisions under the Utah Constitution, and this court finds no cases in which similar provisions have been challenged under state law. Whether the challenged statutory provisions violate the Utah Constitution raises a number of novel questions regarding the bounds of Utah citizens’ right to enact legislation by initiative. Moreover, Plaintiffs make only cursory mention of the Utah Constitution in their motion, providing the court practically no briefing upon which to adjudicate novel questions of state law. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

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

Trujillo v. H&S LBSE Inc · filed 2024-03-29(c)(4)

Because there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” as described above, the Court now exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to Section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when exercising it would let a high-frequency litigant evade California filing restrictions and undermine comity.

Garcia v. Happy Hours Bar and Grill, Inc. · filed 2024-04-02(c)(4)

The Court finds Garcia’s state law claims unsuitable for supplemental jurisdiction within the meaning of section 1367(c)(4). ... Further, given the “unique configuration of laws in this area” that have given rise to concerns regarding fairness and the comity between federal and state courts, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Garcia’s Unruh Act claim results in the same evasion of the California state legislature’s filing restrictions.