28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Herman v. Wieber · filed 2022-03-28(c)

Because Plaintiff has introduced no evidence to support his federal municipal liability claim, there are no remaining federal claims against New York City. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the City, and dismisses those ... claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.

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

Snyder v. U.S. Bankcorp · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” See Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 637 (2009). ... For the above reasons, the Court will remand the state-law claims in Counts Three and Four of the complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims, and § 1367(c)(4) independently permits it when retaining an Unruh Act claim would undermine federal-state comity.

Garcia v. Dudum · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3), (c)(4)

Here, both § 1367(c)(3) and § 1367(c)(4) provide independent bases to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence or medical malpractice claims raised in a federal civil-rights action.

Coward v. Woodson · filed 2022-03-31(c)

The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Harnage v. Dzurenda · filed 2022-03-31

Additionally, to the extent Harnage intends to raise state-law claims in the Second Amended Complaint, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not correspond to surviving federal claims and to dismiss those state claims without prejudice.

Mulligan v. Verizon New York Inc. · filed 2022-03-31(c)(3)

Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that do not correspond to those federal claims the Court has not dismisses, and the Court dismisses those state claims without prejudice.

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

Brown v. FCA US LLC · filed 2022-04-04(c)(4)

Because the parties in this case 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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

MOURATIDIS v. AYALA · filed 2022-04-07(c)

Having dismissed Mouratidis’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)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when a frequent ADA and Unruh Act filer seeks federal jurisdiction to circumvent California’s procedural barriers to those suits.

Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia California Holdings LLC · filed 2022-04-18(c)(4)

The facts of this case—a frequent filer of ADA and Unruh Act claims seeking federal jurisdiction to circumvent California’s procedural barriers to such suits—present the type of exceptional circumstances contemplated by section 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the sole federal claim when retaining it would not serve judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Garcia v. Pena · filed 2022-04-18(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary.

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

Vogelsberg v. Kim · filed 2022-04-19(c)(3)

Second, the district court properly relinquished its jurisdiction over the state-law claims when it resolved all the federal claims; however, subject to any restraints under state law, Vogelsberg may pursue those claims in the appropriate state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(4) typically permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a California Unruh Act claim brought by a high-frequency litigant alongside an ADA claim because that combination presents exceptional circumstances.

Johnson v. Sundowner Inn LLC · filed 2022-04-19(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the FLSA claim supplying original jurisdiction is absent.

Medina v. NYC Harlem Foods Inc · filed 2022-04-21(c)

Regardless,the FLSA is the basis of my subject-matter jurisdiction,andI may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdictionover Plaintiff’s state law claims in absence of a FLSA claim over which I have original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when parallel criminal and civil litigation could produce conflicting judgments.

Burley v. Sumner County 18th Judicial Drug Task Force · filed 2022-04-25(c)

Burley’s proposed state-law claims are based on his allegations of fabrication-of-evidence and, like his claims under § 1983, implicate “pragmatic concerns with avoiding parallel criminal and civil litigation over the same subject matter and the related possibility of conflicting civil and criminal judgments.” McDonough, 139 S. Ct. at 2157. Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims in Burley’s proposed second amended complaint and will deny his motion to amend.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, weighing judicial economy against the need to avoid unnecessary state-law decisions.

Miller 418575 v. Edger · filed 2022-04-26(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 regarding Defendant Holmes, as well as with regard to any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting against Defendant Edger. The Court, therefore, will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice.

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

Wise v. Inslee · filed 2022-04-27(c)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but 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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction for a novel or complex state-law issue, substantial predominance of state claims, dismissal of all original-jurisdiction claims, or exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons.

Raglin v. Mendez · filed 2022-04-27(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)(4) allows a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when the pairing presents extraordinary circumstances tied to California’s accessibility-claim procedures.

Johnson v. T&V Investment, Inc. · filed 2022-04-27(c)(4)

As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4). ... This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering the circumstances of the case and the character of state law.

Zendejas v. Conico Victory, LLC · filed 2022-04-29(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997).

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

Weilch v. Kims Wilmington, LLC · filed 2022-05-02(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim paired with an ADA claim when the circumstances warrant it.

Johnson v. DL Vua Kho Bo & O Mai Inc. · filed 2022-05-02(c)(4)

This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case.

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

Garcia v. A & A Laundry, LLC · filed 2022-05-02(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.”

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

Elliott v. Tsay J and R, LLC · filed 2022-05-06(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 require a showing on whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims and to decline jurisdiction if the response is inadequate.

Brooke v. Moorpark Hospitality Inc. · filed 2022-05-09(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when fairness and comity concerns arise.

Delapaz v. Redondo Gateway LLC · filed 2022-05-09(c)

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

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

Ho v. Rosemead Lawrence Plaza, LLC · filed 2022-05-03(c)(4)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when those claims raise novel or complex state-law issues.

Brown v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2022-05-12(c)(1), (c)(3)

When all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, this Court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... In addition, plaintiff’s state law claims and defenses and the cross claim raise novel or complex issues of state law that likewise cautions against retaining jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and Counts III and VI and the cross claim are dismissed without prejudice.

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

Cano v. Garcia · filed 2022-05-16(c)

It is well-settled, however, that a “district court has discretion to dismiss pendent state law claims, and may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims where it has dismissed claims over which it had original jurisdiction.” St. Germain v. Howard, 556 F.3d 261, 263–64 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims based on the circumstances of the case.

Hee Soon Park v. The Helgager Family Limited Partnership · filed 2022-05-17(c)

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

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

Ventura v. Rachdouni · filed 2022-05-17(c)

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

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

Raglin v. Isaac Medina, Jr. · filed 2022-05-17(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 it specifies.

Raglin v. Cho · filed 2022-05-18(c)

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

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

Williamson v. Pursche Gillingham, LLC · filed 2022-05-19(c)

Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims - - district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims.

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

Ventura v. Josh Shemesh · filed 2022-05-19(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for compelling reasons consistent with economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, including avoiding interference with an arbitrator’s authority to decide contract validity.

Unite Here Local 30 v. Sycuan Band · filed 2022-05-20(c)(4)

Because the district court was correct that the arbitrator should decide issues of contract validity, as discussed below, and the counterclaim rests on an issue of contract validity, the district court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction served economy, convenience, and fairness. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim for lack of standing.

Gastelum v. Pinnacle Hotel Circle LP · filed 2022-05-20(c)

Having found that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his ADA claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim(s). See, e.g., Barnes, 2017 WL 635474, at *13 (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over remaining state law claim after dismissing ADA claim for lack of standing).

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

Bryant v. Dolanotto, LLC · filed 2022-05-23(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims while retaining jurisdiction over a related federal claim.

Brueske v. Chelan County · filed 2022-05-24(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Court declines to exercise ... supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this matter.

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

Benford v. Marine Plaza LLC · filed 2022-05-25(c)

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

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

White v. Smith · filed 2022-01-04(c)

To the extent White’s complaint could be construed as asserting any state-law claims against these defendants, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and remand them after the federal claims are dismissed.

Fenn v. City Commission of Truth or Consequences · filed 2022-01-05(c)

The Court acknowledges that it has discretion to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims pending before it in this case because it was properly removed. ... However, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case and will instead remand them to state court.

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

Paulson v. George · filed 2022-01-12(c)

George’s Motion for Summary Judgment on her malicious prosecution counterclaim is DENIED, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim under § 1367(c), and it is DISMISSED without prejudice.

When a court’s ruling on federal claims is vacated, its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims based on that ruling must also be vacated so the court can reconsider exercising jurisdiction.

Nelson v. Acre Mortgage & Financial Inc · filed 2022-01-12(c)(3)

Because the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in light of its ruling on the federal claim, we will also vacate the District Court’s ruling as to supplemental jurisdiction and remand to give the District Court an opportunity to consider exercising its jurisdiction over Nelson’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with the statutory factors and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding its discretion.

Family Values Resource Institute, Inc. v. State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services · filed 2022-01-14(c)

Here, those factors weigh strongly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Consequently, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims tied to a dismissed federal claim even if other federal claims remain, after considering fairness and judicial economy.

Trepania, Trent v. Sajdera, Joseph · filed 2022-01-20(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim if “it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Although I have not dismissed all federal claims from this suit, “actual dismissal of all federal claims is not required for a district court to exercise the discretion afforded it regarding supplemental jurisdiction.” Dargis v. Sheahan, 526 F.3d 981, 991 (7th Cir. 2008). Instead, I must consider whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is in the interest of fairness and judicial economy. See Id. ... Because there is no longer a federal claim based on the denial of medication, keeping the related state-law claims in this court would unnecessarily lengthen and complicate any trial in this case; no other claim relies on evidence about Trepania’s medical history or the applicable standard of care. So I will dismiss Trepania’s negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after resolving the federal claim when comity favors adjudication in state court.

Oakeley v. New Mexico Department of Transportation · filed 2022-01-20(c)(3)

Because, here, considerations of comity support the usual approach of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court will remand the action to state court.

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

Rambert v. District Attorney Philadelphia · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)

Finally, the District Court acted within its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See Doe v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr., 850 F.3d 545, 567 (3d Cir. 2017) (“A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) when it dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” (quotation marks omitted)).

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

Bhatnagar v. The New School · filed 2022-01-24(c)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and New York City Human Rights Law Claims (“NYCHRL”). A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” and where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Dismissal of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims is warranted because all federal claims have been dismissed before trial and those claims present novel and complex issues of state law.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that appears to duplicate a pending state-court suit.

Smith v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety · filed 2022-01-26(c)

The Plaintiff has failed to explain how the instant claim for breach of contract differs from the lawsuit that is already pending; it appears that he is attempting to enforce the terms of the March 2011 settlement agreement in both. The Court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his breach of contract claim at this time.

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

Waddleton v. Collier · filed 2022-01-27(c)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims regarding Waddleton’s property.

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

Berkley v. Lafayette County, Mississippi · filed 2022-01-28(c)

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

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

Young v. CSL Plasma, Inc. · filed 2022-01-28(c)

The court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s state claims for defamation and loss of consortium pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and the claims are REMANDED to the Richland County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Dukuly 963036 v. Nuttall · filed 2022-02-01(c)

Here, in light of the Court’s dismissal of the federal claims against Defendants Tenhove, Melton, and Treptow, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to these Defendants.

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

Purvey v. Allied Universal · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

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

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

Evans 196645 v. Rauman · filed 2022-02-02(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(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims, especially when unsettled state-law issues favor resolution in state court.

Riboli v. Redmond School District 2J · filed 2022-02-02(c)(1), (c)(3)

After careful consideration, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law negligence claim. All of Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed, triggering the Court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Further, the unique framework of Oregon negligence law makes this case better suited for state court, particularly where Oregon courts have yet to assess how suicide fits into the convoluted foreseeability analysis. See id. § 1367(c)(1).

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

Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland · filed 2022-02-07(c)(1)-(2)

Because the Court finds that the state law claims both substantially predominate over the federal claim and that at least one state law claim involves a novel or complex issue of state law, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim when California’s procedural protections create exceptional comity concerns and the relevant discretionary factors favor dismissal.

Garcia v. Maciel · filed 2022-02-09(c)(4)

Taking into account the Ninth Circuit’s analysis in Arroyo, this Court “ha[s] little difficulty concluding . . . that the situation presented here involves ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4).”

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when none of its grounds for declining jurisdiction applies.

Callejas v. Ocejo · filed 2022-02-10(c)

Here, none of the exceptions to supplemental jurisdiction provided under Section 1367(c) apply.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after resolving all federal claims when the remaining claims present novel or complex state law issues and judicial economy and comity favor dismissal.

Restaurant Law Center v. City of New York · filed 2022-02-10(c)(1), (c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law” and/or the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), (3). ... There is no reason in this case to depart from the ordinary practice of dismissing the remaining state law claims. Each of the federal claims has been resolved. Judicial economy and comity weigh in favor of dismissal. The Plaintiffs argue that judicial economy would be served by deciding the state law claims raised in this action. The legal framework for addressing the federal and state law claims differs substantially. In addition, this litigation presents novel and complex issues of state law. Accordingly, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

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

STEVENS v. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY PRISON · filed 2022-02-14(c)

Because the Court has dismissed his federal claim, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Stevens’s possible state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise a novel issue of state law and substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Campbell v. Arizona, State of · filed 2022-02-16(c)(1), (c)(2)

Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims under § 1367(c)(1) and (2).

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

Brooke v. Shri Ambica LLC · filed 2022-02-23(c)(2), (c)(4)

In sum, because (1) Plaintiff's 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) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after weighing judicial economy against the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Robinson 732728 v. Kytola · filed 2022-03-03(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, at least with respect to Defendants Washington, Taskila, Hamel, Majurin, Stromer, and Wilson, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims against those Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when a viable federal claim remains, subject to reconsideration if circumstances change.

Mayer v. City Of San Jose · filed 2022-03-07(c)

The City asks the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction because there is no viable ADA claim. As discussed above, Mayer has pled a cognizable ADA claim. Therefore, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims unless and until there is a change in circumstances that warrants reconsideration of the issue under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) generally calls for federal courts to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial.

Yerks, Jammie v. McArdle, Sandra · filed 2022-03-11(c)(3)

The general rule is that federal courts should relinquish jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are resolved before trial.

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

Carter v. Correctional Officer C. Cole · filed 2022-03-14(c)

The court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims and will therefore deny the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after weighing judicial economy, avoiding multiple suits, and avoiding unnecessary state law decisions.

Pann 254048 v. Hadden · filed 2022-03-14(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)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, any intended state law claims are unrelated to Plaintiff’s federal retaliation claims, which remain in the case. 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) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over potential state-law claims when the federal claim fails.

Whitehurst v. Robb · filed 2022-03-15(c)

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

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

Minier 184698 v. Stephens · filed 2022-03-15(c)

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

Section 1367(c) makes dismissal of supplemental state-law claims discretionary, with judicial economy and avoidance of duplicative litigation relevant to whether jurisdiction should continue.

Resch 304507 v. Lambart · filed 2022-03-22(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). ... Here, considering the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claim against Defendant Sperling, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction as to him.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when an amended complaint removes all federal claims and the litigation is at an early stage.

Singleton v. Warren County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-03-23(c)

Given the filing of plaintiff’s amended complaint, which involves solely state-law claims, and given the early stages of this lawsuit, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after the federal claim is abandoned when the claim involves undeveloped state-law issues.

Sturm Ex Rel. Sturm v. Providian National Bank · filed 1999-12-23(c)

Nonetheless, the Court, based upon . its consideration of § 1367, Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir.1995) and related authority, declines jurisdiction over the remaining claim. The claim involves peculiarly state law issues and is presently undeveloped in this Court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state-law claims when the sole federal claim is abandoned before the court decides pending substantive motions.

Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. H.O. Penn MacHinery Co. · filed 2004-07-30(c)

In this case, the plaintiffs abandoned their sole federal claim before the Court decided the fully submitted motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss. No claims remain in which this court has original jurisdiction. Under Valencia, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and in the interest of comity and judicial economy, the case should be remanded.

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

Zinter Handling, Inc. v. General Electric Co. · filed 2008-10-07(c)

The District Court could entertain the remaining state law claims on remand based on supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But in view of serious questions with respect to the ownership of the drawings — questions that are no longer necessary to the resolution of the only federal cause of action in this case — and in view of the fact that the District Court previously declined supplemental jurisdiction over those state law causes of action that it did not find it necessary to reach, we deem it appropriate to have all the state causes of action dismissed without prejudice to their consideration in state court. Id. § 1867(c).

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining local claim or remand the action to state court after the federal claims are withdrawn.

The Folb Partnership v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2018-12-12(c)(3)

Because Paramount withdrew its constitutional claims on appeal, the only remaining claim is a purely local one. Thus, the district court has discretion to either exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim or remand the action to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claim remains, including when the federal claim is abandoned.

Heier v. Czika · filed 2020-08-18(c)(3)

Even where there is original subject matter jurisdiction due to a federal question contained in the complaint, if that claim is subsequently dismissed (or abandoned), it is in this Court’s discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) permit a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims when the reasons for abstention also apply to those claims.

Oltremari Ex Rel. McDaniel v. Kansas Social & Rehabilitative Service · filed 1994-11-21(c)(1), (c)(2)

In conjunction with or instead of abstaining from the claims within the supplemental jurisdiction of this court, the court should also decline to exercise such jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) or (2).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims present novel issues of state law and are likely to overwhelm the remaining federal claim.

Norte Car Corp. v. FirstBank Corp. · filed 1998-09-30(c)(1), (c)(2)

The state law claims also represent novel issues under Puerto Rico law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). The state law claims would be likely to overwhelm the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

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

City of New Rochelle v. Town of Mamaroneck · filed 2000-08-24(c)(1), (c)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises novel or complex issues of state law” or “the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the court has original jurisdiction.” ... The Court, acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (2), remands all of Plaintiffs State law claims to the New York State Supreme Court for adjudication.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) allow a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining state-law claims are not shown to raise novel or complex state-law issues or to substantially predominate over claims within original jurisdiction.

US West, Inc. v. Business Discount Plan, Inc. · filed 2000-09-25(c)(1), (c)(2)

Because of my above rulings, Defendant cannot maintain that the remaining state law claims “substantially predominate! ] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). In addition, Defendants have failed to identify why the remaining state law claims “raise! ] a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Consequently, I will not decline to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff U.S. West’s state law CCPA claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims raise complex or novel issues of state law or would substantially predominate over the remaining federal claims.

Sacay v. Research Foundation of the City University of New York · filed 2002-03-27(c)(1), (c)(2)

Even if they were, supplemental jurisdiction would be declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (2). ... New York State and City discrimination laws differ significantly from federal discrimination law; and they involve potentially complex and novel issues of state law. In addition, if they were not dismissed but went to trial, the State and City discrimination claims would substantially predominate over the federal retaliation claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims seek substantially broader remedies than the federal claim and a conflict in state law raises novel or complex issues.

Feezor v. Tesstab Operations Group, Inc. · filed 2007-12-17(c)(1), (c)(2)

Given the disparity in terms of comprehensiveness of the remedy sought, state law claims substantially predominate over the ADA for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). ... This court is therefore faced with a conflict in state law, which raises novel or complex state law issues for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims require resolving complex state law issues and would predominate over the federal claim.

Utopia Provider Systems, Inc. v. Pro-Med Clinical Systems, L.L.C. · filed 2010-02-19(c)(1), (c)(2)

Given the deference we afford a district court’s decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by finding that adjudicating Counts II and III would require resolution of complex issues of state law and would predominate over the federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims present novel or complex issues and substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Jones v. Baugher · filed 2010-03-03(c)(1), (c)(2)

Accordingly, the court concludes that Jones’ state law claims involve novel and potentially complex issues of state law and that those claims substantially predominate over his FDCPA claim, and therefore, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (2).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law class claim substantially predominates over individual federal claims or raises a novel and difficult issue of state law.

De La Riva v. Houlihan Smith & Co. · filed 2012-03-02(c)(1), (c)(2)

Under those metrics, the necessity for potentially cumbersome post-trial proceedings devoted entirely to the IMWL claims weighs heavily in favor of finding substantial predominance under subsection (c)(2). ... Accordingly, the presence of this novel and difficult question of state law — a question that, as noted above, will have tangible consequences for the parties, particularly if a class is certified — makes it appropriate to relinquish jurisdiction over the IMWL claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state wage claims when they do not substantially predominate over FLSA claims and a potentially novel state-law issue can be resolved before class certification.

Bates v. Delaware Health Corp. · filed 2012-07-05(c)(1), (c)(2)

There is, in my opinion, much less of a showing that the state law claims predominate over the FLSA action than there was in De Asencio, and the only issue that favors declining jurisdiction can, I believe, be satisfactorily and finally resolved before the question of class certification ever arises. Thus, I will deny the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

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

Umc Development, LLC v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-10-08(c)(1), (c)(2)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs D.C. claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13 6 7 ( c) ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) .

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when unsettled state-law questions substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Green Valley Investments, LLC v. Winnebago County · filed 2015-07-27(c)(1), (c)(2)

Moreover, in our view the questions of state law that remain to be decided “substantially predominate[ ] over the claim or claims 'over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). ... We conclude that the district court, after confirming that the 2006 ordinance violated the federal constitution in some respects, should have relinquished its jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction for novel or complex state-law issues or substantial state-law predominance, which generally concerns the type of claim but may also result from a sufficiently great disparity in class sizes.

De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2003-09-08(c)(1), (c)(2)

Predomination under section 1367 generally goes to the type of claim, not the number of parties involved. But the disparity in numbers of similarly situated plaintiffs may be so great that it becomes dispositive by transforming the action to a substantial degree, by causing the federal tail represented by a comparatively small number of plaintiffs to wag what is in substance a state dog. Within the section 1367(c) analysis, certain issues of state law presented in the WPCL action also weigh heavily, tilting the balance against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Pennsylvania courts have not addressed two novel and complex questions of state law squarely presented here: whether a WPCL action may rest on an implied employment contract that relies on alleged oral representations by Tyson managers; and whether the WPCL pertains to at will, non-collective bargaining employees. The need to resolve these issues, which are better left to the Pennsylvania state courts, weighs in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(2) permit a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel state-law issue or substantially predominates over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Munoz v. JLO Automotive, Inc. · filed 2020-07-31(c)(1), (c)(2)

In the present case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(1) and (c)(2).

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

Henderson v. Vision Property Management, LLC · filed 2020-10-07(c)(1), (c)(2)

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, the Court DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION over any state-law claims in this action.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to remand state-law claims when few or no federal claims remain and the state-law claims predominate.

Southard v. Newcomb Oil Co., LLC · filed 2021-08-04(c)(2)

Subsection (c)(2) permits district courts to remand state-law claims when few, or no, federal claims remain.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises novel and complex questions of state law.

Robertson v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri · filed 2021-09-29(c)(1)

Three judges in this District recently declined to consider this claim, finding it raises novel and complex issues of statutory construction and conflicts of law that would be more appropriately resolved first by Missouri state courts. Davis, 2021 WL 4148331, at *11; Newbold, 2021 WL 4061066, at *11; Ortega, 2021 WL 3286703, at *19; Street, 2021 WL 677909, at *13-14. This Court agrees and likewise declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims that raise novel and complex issues of state law.

Lopez v. City of New York · filed 2021-10-20(c)(1)

Because the development of this legal framework raises “novel and complex issues of State law,” a federal court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). Having dismissed all federal claims, I decline to exercise this jurisdiction. The NYCHRL claims are thus dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the record supports a possibility that the state law claims raise novel issues, even if the court does not identify those issues specifically.

FIH, LLC v. Barr · filed 2021-11-15(c)(1)

While a specific identification of novel issues is often helpful to appellate review, on the record here, we conclude that, upon reconsideration, the district court adequately grounded its decision to dismiss the state law claims in section 1367(c)(1), which permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if state law claims “raise[] . . . novel or complex issue[s] of State law.”

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims that raise novel issues of state law.

Pagan v. Colon · filed 2022-02-16(c)(1)

As the state courts have not recognized a private right of action for Connecticut prisoners under any of the state constitutional provisions, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Article first, §§ 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution claims as they involve novel issues of state law.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when deciding it would require resolving a novel question of whether the state statute implies a private right of action.

O'Shea v. Augustana College · filed 2022-03-24(c)(1)

Determining for the very first time whether an Illinois statute implies a private right of action is certainly a novel issue which the Court believes is best reserved for Illinois courts. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims brought under the Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that presents a novel issue of state law.

Uebelacker, Barbara v. Rock Energy Cooperative · filed 2022-04-14(c)(1)

And Uebelacker’s claim presents a novel issue of state law—whether a social media account is a “private place” for the purposes of the statute—which would be another basis for the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims presenting a novel, unsettled issue of state sovereign immunity.

Jones v. Turner · filed 2022-04-22(c)(1)

Federal courts are hesitant to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over novel, complex, and important issues of state law such as this one, on which the state appellate courts have provided little or no guidance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1); Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 188 F.3d 1031, 1038 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[N]ovel, complex, and important issues of state law on which the [state] appellate courts have given us little or no prior guidance . . . are precisely the types of issues as to which federal courts should hesitate to exercise § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction.”). The Court will thus decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims against the City in Counts III and V, and the Court will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim raising a novel issue about the scope of a county’s duty to jail inmates.

Taylor v. Gladieux · filed 2022-05-12(c)(1)

However, a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it “raises a novel or complex issue of State law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... These additional considerations make it inappropriate for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over this state-law claim against a unit of state government.

Section 1367(c)(1) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims for novel state-law issues when the court is deciding only whether those claims must be arbitrated.

Nu Skin Enterprises v. Raab · filed 2022-06-13(c)(1)

The only question for this court to address is whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims currently pending in Washington state court. Respondents argue Washington has an interest in interpreting novel issues of its own laws, rather than having such decisions rendered by a federal court of another state. But Respondents’ state-law claims will not be resolved by this court.

Section 1367(c)(1) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel issue of state law.

Kleven v. St. Joseph County · filed 2022-07-05(c)(1)

As a preliminary matter, it is a matter of judicial discretion whether to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the case involves a novel state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises a novel issue that state courts have not resolved.

Gibson v. Community Development Partners (CDP) · filed 2022-10-18(c)(1)

The Court declines to take on the task of crafting novel Oregon law, and therefore declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s eighth claim.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a significant, unanswered question of state law.

Williams v. Correction · filed 2022-11-04(c)(1)

Here, because Plaintiff’s claim against the state of Connecticut pursuant to § 52-556 raises a significant and unanswered question of state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim pursuant to § 1367(c)(1) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” that “raises a novel or complex issue of State Law....”).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining state-law claims predominate after resolution of the federal claims.

Kellner v. Quinn · filed 2023-02-03(c)(2)

Having now resolved the crossclaims, counterclaim , and Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s Complaint, the court observes that the claims asserted in Counts III through VI now predominate. The court, therefore, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel issue of state law.

Franklin v. Franklin County, Kentucky · filed 2023-02-13(c)(1)

In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), Ms. Franklin’s battery claim is better left for a Kentucky court to decide because it raises a novel issue of Kentucky law and “both parties have made plausible arguments in favor of their respective positions.” Weser, 965 F.3d at 519.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the remaining state law claims present novel issues of state law.

Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. Centene Corporation · filed 2023-03-06(c)(1)

Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the state law claims arise from novel state law issues.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

City of Fairborn, Ohio v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2023-03-13(c)(1)

Second, this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... This indicates that such a basis for jurisdiction is novel to Ohio courts, so the Court— in the interest of comity—declines to be the first court to create a citizen’s private right of action against Ohio EPA.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim presents novel issues.

Rector v. Clifford · filed 2023-05-02(c)(1)

The Court agrees that the product and immunity issues are novel, which counsels against this Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction and keeping the case.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a local claim raises a novel issue of law.

Gautier-James, Ivy v. Hovensa LLC · filed 2023-07-12(c)(1)

Simply stated, the novel sexual harassment issue included among Plaintiff’s local claims is a factor that weighs strongly in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s local claims under the circumstances here.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that present a novel issue of state law.

Hamilton v. Durham School Services, LP · filed 2024-02-08(c)(1)

Having reviewed the parties respective positions, this Court concludes that this is a novel issue under Michigan law and it will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims, leaving only Plaintiff’s ADA claims against Defendants Durham Schools and National Express to proceed in this case.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that raise a novel issue of state law.

CLARK v. COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX · filed 2024-06-17(c)(1)

Nonetheless, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in several circumstances, including where a claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The Court concludes that this issue is best left to a New Jersey state court, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them for this reason.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims that raise novel issues of state law.

Pena v. Czeremcha · filed 2024-10-02(c)(1)

The Connecticut Supreme Court has not applied section 7 or 9 in the context of a case filed by an inmate or a detainee involving claims relating to SRG classification. Therefore, because this claim raises a novel issue of state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims asserted pursuant to Article First, § 7 of the Connecticut Constitution.

Section 1367(c)(2) makes the predominance of state law claims relevant to whether a court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Arntsen v. State of Washington · filed 2024-10-03(c)(2)

Whether the state law claims predominate is an issue the Court considers when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, not whether to exercise original jurisdiction over federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction despite a novel issue of local law when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Canaii, Jr. v. Government of the Virgin Islands , Albert Bryan · filed 2024-10-04(c)(1)

As such, “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity,” De Ritis, 861 F.3d at 459 n.13, weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s VICRA claim, despite the novel issues of local law raised therein.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that raise novel issues of state law.

Barrientos v. 1010 Brickell Condominium Association, Inc. · filed 2025-04-04(c)(1)

The Court is particularly mindful of the “novel Florida common law issues” purportedly at stake here. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim raising a novel issue of state law.

Crispin v. State of Connecticut · filed 2025-05-23(c)(1)

Accordingly, the Court declines subject matter jurisdiction over this claim raising a novel interpretation of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” that “raised a novel or complex issue of State Law . . . .”).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim raises a novel issue of state law.

Witherspoon v. Corey · filed 2025-07-03(c)

In this case, the Court has little trouble concluding that the issue of whether plaintiff may avoid the jurisdictional bar of Correction Law § 24 and litigate a negligence claim based on alleged incidents of excessive force raises novel issues of state law. Thus, even if Correction Law § 24 does not bar the Court from considering plaintiff’s negligence claim, the Court alternatively declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel issue of state law.

Trujillo v. Rio Grande County Sheriff's Office · filed 2025-09-29(c)(1)

Because this is a novel question of state law, the Court instead respectfully declines to exercise supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s CADA claims against the County.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that raises a novel issue, including whether a state statute creates a private right of action.

Eldridge · filed 2025-12-10(c)(1)

Even assuming that Plaintiffs’ Garden Act claim and at least one other remaining claim share “a common nucleus of operative facts,” Ammerman, 54 F.3d at 424, the Court nevertheless declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim that raises a novel issue of state law.

Reed v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2022-08-10(c)(1)

This Court agreed with the decision in Peterson and also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this novel issue of state law.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (c)(4) allow a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate or exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons; the decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion in light of all the circumstances.

Che v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority · filed 2003-08-26(c)(2), (c)(4)

By statute, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, among other things, the state claim "substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction," or "in exceptional circumstances, [when] there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), (c)(4). ... In light of these facts, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (c)(4) allow a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when arguments that state claims predominate or compelling reasons warrant declining jurisdiction lack merit.

Glynn v. Edo Corp. · filed 2008-02-27(c)(2), (c)(4)

Defendants also argue that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, contending that the state law claims predominate over the federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), and that other "compelling reasons” exist for declining jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). These arguments are without merit, and the motion to dismiss on this basis is denied.

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state disability-discrimination claims substantially predominate over an ADA claim and comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute exceptional circumstances.

Meggs v. Penn · filed 2019-10-28(c)(2), (c)(4)

In sum, because (1) Plaintiffs state law claims predominate 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 ... counts two and three in the complaint.

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim, with comity and discouraging forum shopping supplying exceptional circumstances.

Brooke v. LHO Mission Bay Hotel LP · filed 2019-12-19(c)(2), (c)(4)

In sum, because (1) Plaintiff's 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 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim when comity and discouraging evasion of California’s pleading requirements also constitute exceptional circumstances.

Brooke v. CWI 2 La Jolla Hotel LP · filed 2019-12-19(c)(2), (c)(4)

In sum, because (1) Plaintiff's state law claim predominates over her federal claim 2 ||under the ADA, and (2) the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute 3 ||exceptional circumstances, the Court sua sponte declines supplemental jurisdiction over 4 || claim two in the complaint.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permit declining supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim would substantially predominate and differences in immunity and recoverable damages create exceptional risks of jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience, and unfairness.

Horton v. Detroit, City of · filed 2020-01-02(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claim for assault and battery with Plaintiff’s federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claim would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim when comity and discouraging forum shopping also constitute exceptional circumstances.

Banks v. Lomedico · filed 2020-01-09(c)(2), (c)(4)

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 ... claim two in the complaint.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate or differing immunity and damages standards create exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons involving jury confusion, inefficiency, inconvenience, and potential unfairness.

Brown v. Scaglione · filed 2020-02-11(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claims for assault and battery with Plaintiff’s federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claims would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law assault and battery claims.

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when an Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over an ADA claim and comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute exceptional circumstances.

Brooke v. Crestline Hotels & Resorts LLC · filed 2020-02-25(c)(2), (c)(4)

Thus, the state claim and the issues related thereto substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which appears to be a secondary claim included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather than a necessary (let alone predominant) claim in this lawsuit. ... In addition, the important interest of comity supports declining jurisdiction.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim, with comity and discouraging forum shopping supplying exceptional circumstances for declining jurisdiction.

Banks v. Grand Restaurant Group · filed 2020-03-13(c)(2), (c)(4)

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 ... claim two in the complaint.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when numerous state-law claims substantially predominate over federal claims and potential confusion about issues, legal theories, defenses, and relief outweighs the advantages of a joint trial.

Doe MC-6 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-03-17(c)(2), (c)(4)

The Court exercises its discretion not to hear Plaintiff’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. §(c)(2) and (c)(4). Simply put, Plaintiff’s numerous state-law claims would predominate over his relatively small number of federal claims. In addition, there is a compelling reason for the Court to decline jurisdiction because any advantages to be gained by trying all the claims together here are outweighed by the potential for confusion about the issues, legal theories, defenses, and possible relief.

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim when comity and discouraging forum shopping also constitute exceptional circumstances.

Langer v. Clairemont Medical Surgical Center LLC · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2), (c)(4)

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 ... claim two in the complaint.

Section 1367 permits dismissal without prejudice of state claims that substantially predominate over federal claims or present exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction, including differing immunity and damages standards that threaten jury confusion, inefficiency, inconvenience, and unfairness.

Doe MC-23 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claims with his federal could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claims would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim, with comity and discouraging forum shopping constituting exceptional circumstances supporting that decision.

Langer v. Carlton Sell LLC · filed 2020-04-01(c)(2), (c)(4)

Thus, the state claim and the issues related thereto substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which appears to be a secondary claim included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather than a necessary (let alone predominant) claim in this lawsuit. ... In addition, the important interest of comity supports declining jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate and the likelihood of jury confusion and judicial inefficiency outweighs the advantages of trying the claims together.

Doe MC-12 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-04-01(c)(2), (c)(4)

In addition, under 1367(c)(4), exceptional circumstances are present because of the likelihood of jury confusion and judicial inefficiency: any advantages to be gained by trying all the claims together here are outweighed by the potential for confusion about the issues, legal theories, defenses, and possible relief. The state law claims in this action would predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate or their joint trial with federal claims creates exceptional risks of jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience, and unfairness.

Doe MC-31 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-04-03(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claims with his federal could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claims would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate and the likelihood of jury confusion and judicial inefficiency constitutes exceptional circumstances.

Doe MC-29 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-04-07(c)(2), (c)(4)

In addition, under 1367(c)(4), exceptional circumstances are present because of the likelihood of jury confusion and judicial inefficiency: any advantages to be gained by trying all the claims together here are outweighed by the potential for confusion about the issues, legal theories, defenses, and possible relief. The state law claims in this action would predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate or differences in immunity and recoverable damages create exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons involving jury confusion, inefficiency, inconvenience, and unfairness.

Doe MC-34 v. The University of Michigan · filed 2020-04-08(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claims with his federal could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claims would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim, with comity and discouraging evasion of California’s pleading requirements providing exceptional circumstances supporting declination.

Rutherford v. Roosevelt/Tamarack Investments Property Holding, LLC · filed 2020-04-13(c)(2), (c)(4)

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)(2) and (4) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate and differing immunity and damages rules create exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons involving jury confusion, inefficiency, inconvenience, and potential unfairness.

Tindall v. Macomb · filed 2020-04-24(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claims with his federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claims would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain related state-law claims when they do not predominate over a surviving federal claim and economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Strojnik v. Resort at Indian Springs, LLC · filed 2020-06-25(c)(2), (c)(4)

The Court is not persuaded that the section 1367(c) factors cited by Defendant warrant a refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s state law claims do not predominate over the ADA claim, which has not been dismissed, and retention of the state law claims would serve values of “economy, convenience, [and] fairness.”

Section 1367(c)(2) and (4) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims would predominate and trying them with federal claims would create exceptional risks of jury confusion, inefficiency, inconvenience, and unfairness.

Womble v. County of Macomb · filed 2020-06-30(c)(2), (c)(4)

The inclusion of Plaintiff’s state claims with his federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could lead to jury confusion, judicial inefficiency, inconvenience to the parties, and an unfair outcome. Additionally, the state claims would likely predominate over Plaintiff’s federal claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) and (4), the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when it predominates over an ADA claim and comity and forum shopping concerns constitute exceptional circumstances.

Cota v. Journeys · filed 2020-07-09(c)(2), (c)(4)

In sum, because (1) Plaintiff's 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) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim and when comity and discouraging forum shopping provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Sanchez v. Venture Plus Inc. · filed 2021-02-17(c)(2), (c)(4)

In sum, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim because it substantially predominates over her federal claim under the ADA and exceptional circumstances favor dismissal, including the Court’s interests in comity and discouraging forum-shopping.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that raise novel or complex issues of state law or when compelling reasons exist, including a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a state-court action followed by filing an almost identical federal suit.

Shieh v. David Ebershoff Fulbright & Jaworski Paul S. Blencowe Tim C. Bruinsma · filed 1993-12-30(c)(1), (c)(4)

Shieh's first amended complaint alleges over seventy state law claims against thousands of defendants involving issues of state tort law. Thus, it was not clear error to conclude that the claims raise novel or complex issues of state law. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(1). Moreover, given the fact that Shieh had originally filed this action (and others) in state court and voluntarily dismissed the action only to file an almost identical lawsuit in federal court, the district court did not err by determining that compelling reasons existed for declining jurisdiction over Shieh's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for a novel or complex state-law issue or exceptional circumstances; the party seeking dismissal must show a basis for doing so.

Small v. City of New York · filed 2003-07-30(c)(1), (c)(4)

Supplemental jurisdiction may be declined, of course, where the state claim “raises a novel or complex issue of state law” or where “exceptional circumstances” exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (4). Since Wild, Wild West has not shown any novel issue of state law that will necessarily be raised in relation to the claim brought against it, nor are there exceptional circumstances, Wild, Wild West’s motion is denied.

Section 1367(c) permits remand of a supplemental state-law claim when it raises a novel state-law issue or exceptional circumstances make comity favor resolution in state court.

California Ex Rel. Lockyer v. County of Santa Cruz · filed 2006-02-21(c)(1), (c)(4)

Because there is no case law on whether California Government Code § 12172.5 precludes the California Attorney General from instigating suits under Elections Code § 12280, this is a novel issue of state law under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... This cause of action also qualifies as an “exceptional circumstance” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ... Although economy and convenience favor having Lockyer’s two causes of action heard before the same court, comity overwhelmingly favors allowing California to handle its internal disputes in its own court system. Remand of the Elections Code § 12280 cause of action is appropriate here.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel or complex state-law claim or for compelling reasons, including delay caused by a state procedural rule.

Telepo v. Martin · filed 2009-04-22(c)(1), (c)(4)

To the extent that plaintiff has any malpractice claim under Pennsylvania law, that claim appears novel and complex. As such the Court will exercise its discretion under Rule 15 and under the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute not to hear this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) (permitting a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction where the state law claim is “novel or complex”). Additionally, the Court finds that there are “compelling reasons” to decline to exercise jurisdiction. See id. § 1367(c)(4).