28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over foreign-law claims when adjudicating them would substantially restart lengthy litigation.

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation · filed 2010-09-14(c)(1), (c)(4)

The Court, on the thin presentation made by Plaintiffs to date, is not persuaded that it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, as doing so would essentially restart substantial portions of this seven-year old litigation.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim raising a novel or complex state-law issue and compelling federalism concerns.

John Does 1-4 v. Snyder · filed 2013-03-18(c)(1), (c)(4)

Even assuming, arguendo, that Count VIII states a claim under Headlee and § 1367(a)’s supplemental jurisdiction standard is satisfied, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the grounds that the claim raises a “novel or complex issue of State law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), and the claim presents other “compelling reasons” to decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (4) permit a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims when their resolution would require complex state law analysis and parallel state litigation threatens duplicative effort, comity, and inconsistent results.

Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County · filed 2013-04-12(c)(1), (c)(4)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) and (4), supplemental jurisdiction is DECLINED over Counts I, IV, V, VI, IX, X, XII, XIII, and XIV.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim that raises an unresolved issue of state law implicating significant state interests, particularly when the state prefers to resolve that claim through its own procedures.

Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance Authority · filed 2013-09-20(c)(1), (c)(4)

This case concededly presents an unresolved question of state law and is also one in which there are exceptional circumstances which provide compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. ... Whether or not Article 78 can itself deprive the district court of jurisdiction over claims brought under its provisions, the state preference to try Article 78 claims in state court bears on our assessment of whether the district court abused its discretion in deciding nonetheless to exercise pendent jurisdiction here, where other factors, too, strongly support declining that jurisdiction. We hold that the district court abused its discretion in exercising pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law question is not too novel or complex and defending different claims in one case does not present compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Myers v. Americollect Inc. · filed 2016-07-06(c)(1), (c)(4)

But there is no need for the court to decide that question to conclude that the question is not so novel or complex that the court should decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to answer it. ... Aurora argues that these facts present the kind of “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” that require the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. The court disagrees. ... At this point, the court will not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the WCA claim against Aurora.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (4) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when unsettled state law, related state-court proceedings, the risk of inconsistent results, and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity favor dismissal.

Mosier v. State University of New York · filed 2020-09-24(c)(1), (c)(4)

In conjunction with its ruling on the SUNY Defendants’ Motion, considering the cumulative weight of the following factors, the Court finds it eminently prudent to dismiss Mosier’s § 296(6) Claim without prejudice to be heard in tandem with her § 296(4) Claim in state court and, therefore, unnecessary to resolve the parties’ opposing positions regarding whether a single individual can aid and abet his own allegedly discriminatory conduct: ... as well as considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, see generally 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) & (4).

Section 1367(c)(1) and (c)(4) allow a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over novel or complex state-law claims when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to do so.

VAMOS, Concertacion Ciudadana Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2020-09-24(c)(1), (c)(4)

Notwithstanding the Pennhurst doctrine, the Court would still decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims based on Puerto Rico law. To the extent the plaintiffs wish to assert that the constitutional rights in the Puerto Rico Constitution have a different scope or effect than their counterparts in the Federal Constitution, the claims raise novel or complex issues of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). The circumstances are also exceptional and present compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction, id. § 1367(c)(4), because plaintiffs provide absolutely no supporting argument on a distinct scope or effect of the Puerto Rico constitutional provision, and the short timeline of this case does not allow the Court to properly address the issues.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (4) allow a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when uncertainty about its administrative prerequisites presents a novel or complex state-law issue or another compelling reason.

Smith v. American Electric Power Service Corporation · filed 2021-04-14(c)(1), (c)(4)

It is unclear to the court if it may exercise jurisdiction over a claim pursuant to Virginia Code § 40.1-51.2:1 when the lawsuit is filed before the issuance of a determination letter pursuant to § 40.1-51.2:2, and the determination letter is then issued during the pendency of the lawsuit – and, in this case, after a motion for summary judgment is filed. Given this uncertainty, the court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. See § 1367(c)(1), (4) (providing that a court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when a claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or when in “exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction”). The claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law or substantially predominates over claims within its original jurisdiction; the court should consider whether to stay, hear, or dismiss such claims.

Pejepscot Industrial Park, Inc. v. Maine Central Railroad · filed 2000-06-23(c)(1), (c)(2)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute states that a district court may refuse to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the state claim "substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction" or "the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law." 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(1), (c)(2). The district court should consider on remand whether to stay, act on, or dismiss Grimmel's state law claims.

Section 1367(c) requires a district court considering related state law claims to decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction before considering a stay pending related state proceedings.

Rosen v. County of Suffolk · filed 2002-12-16(c)

We vacate the portion of the district court’s judgment that dismisses Rosen’s state law damages claims and remand so that the district court may: 1) decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because Rosen’s state law damages claims “form part of the same case or controversy” as Rosen’s claims against the remaining defendants, see Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 325 (2d Cir.2002); 2) decide whether the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction should be declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); and 3) if it chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, determine whether it would be appropriate to issue a stay of the federal action pending the outcome of the related state proceedings.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction; an unjustified stay of those claims does not justify dismissing related state claims.

Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County · filed 2005-09-26(c)(3)

Although the district court did not dismiss the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, its decision to stay these claims pending resolution of the LUPA claims in state court most likely explains its decision to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. We conclude, however, that because the district court abused its discretion in abstaining, its stay of the federal claims does not justify its decision to dismiss the state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims early in litigation when the federal claims have been dismissed or stayed and none will proceed.

Rossi v. Gemma · filed 2007-05-31(c)(3)

But the distinction makes no difference for the slander of title claims; we do not believe that Congress meant to preclude the exercise of the district court's discretion to dismiss state claims, this early in the litigation, once the court will not go forward on any federal claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims involving the same facts as federal claims and permits declining jurisdiction over state-law medical-negligence claims when the related federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Parmeley v. Williamson County Jail · filed 2019-12-02(a), (c)(3)

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims because they involve the same facts as the federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... To the extent Plaintiff intended to allege state law medical negligence claims based on the facts alleged in Counts 21 and 22, which are being dismissed, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), extends the jurisdiction of federal district courts to all claims that are sufficiently related to the claim or claims on which their original jurisdiction is based to be part of the same case or controversy within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. This same statute provides that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 allows a court to entertain state common law claims at initial review when sufficiently pleaded federal claims survive.

Adkins v. Mahoney and Ballard, D.M.D., Inc. · filed 2021-01-06

As discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled federal claims pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to survive initial review. As such, plaintiff’s state common law claims of negligence and negligence per se may, at this stage of litigation, be entertained under the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims against defendants whose federal claims were dismissed when federal claims against other defendants remain pending.

Louviere v. St. Tammany Parish Government · filed 2021-04-22(a)

Although the Court has determined that Plaintiffs’ federal claims against Defendants must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs have asserted federal claims against other defendants in this case, including Sheriff Smith, Warden Kelly, and the St. Tammany Parish Government, all of which remain pending before the Court at this time. As such, and because the state law claims against Defendants “are so related to claims in the action within [the Court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III,”122 the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against Defendants.

Section 1367(a) does not support supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that merely share a broad factual background with federal claims when the claims require different proof.

Wilber v. Manlove · filed 2021-04-28(a)

Supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate merely because the claims are “tangentially related” or share a broad factual background. ... Again, the evidence necessary for Wilber to succeed on a medical negligence claim will not overlap with the evidence necessary for him to succeed on his federal claims. Therefore, Wilber’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) does not confer supplemental jurisdiction over state claims whose only connection to the federal claims is a tenuous factual overlap.

Villarreal v. Saenz · filed 2021-05-18(a)

The only facts the claims have in common involve Saenz’s attempt to use the Release to bar Plaintiffs from raising claims against him in this litigation. Such a tenuous connection is insufficient to confer jurisdiction under these circumstances.

Section 1367(a) gives a district court supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim closely related to an ADA claim.

United African-Asian Abilities Club v. C and S Shoreham LP · filed 2022-09-02(a)

Because Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the Court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 367(a).

Section 1367(a) does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that shares no common issue of fact or law with the federal claims proceeding in court.

Estrada v. Director, TDCJ-CID · filed 2022-11-14(a)

But Plaintiffs property claim does not share any common issue of fact or law with the federal claims that are proceeding in this Court. Thus, it is not “so related to claims in the action within [the Court’s] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the proof needed for it does not overlap with the proof needed for the federal claim.

Legister v. Schlei · filed 2023-05-03(a)

Accordingly, Legister’s purported negligence claim is not “so related” to his federal claim that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same facts as federal claims.

Phelps v. Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) · filed 2023-06-15(a)

Here, neither party disputes that the federal and state claims against all Defendants form part of the same case or controversy. All claims arose out of the same facts: Phelps’s treatment by his supervisors and colleagues at IDOC. ... Because the Court maintains supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, it will assess whether sovereign immunity applies according to each claim for which the defense was raised.

Section 1367 requires state law claims to share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim for supplemental jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Wilcox · filed 2023-06-28(a)

Here, too, the state law claims for FOIL denials and the federal claim for habeas relief are not connected by a "common nucleus of operative fact." See Jeanty, 2021 WL 1055153, at *4 (quoting Young v. New York City Transit Auth., 903 F.2d 146, 164 (2d Cir. 1990)). As such, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim related to a federal claim, but a shared broad factual background alone is insufficient.

Gidarisingh v. Bauer · filed 2024-09-26(a)

Again, the Court finds that the evidence necessary for Plaintiff to succeed on a slander claim will not overlap with the evidence necessary for him to succeed on his federal retaliation claim. As such, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a slander claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that are sufficiently related to federal claims arising from the same alleged failure to reimburse for medical services.

Murphy Med. Assocs., LLC v. Yale Univ. · filed 2024-11-04(a)

Although the district court did not justify its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Murphy’s pendent state-law claims after dismissing its federal claims, “the parties do not dispute that all of the [state] claims asserted . . . involve the [defendant]’s alleged failure to reimburse [the plaintiff] for medical services provided to Plan beneficiaries” and therefore “are so related to [the federal] claims” under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) that the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was appropriate.

Section 1367(a) does not provide supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that share only a broad factual background with federal claims and lack overlapping questions of law and fact.

Davis · filed 2025-11-04(a)

Although the claims are loosely connected—they generally involve treatment for Davis’ foot and ankle injury—they do not involve overlapping questions of law and fact. The Court therefore does not have supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim substantially predominates because of the disparity in remedies available for the state and federal claims.

Dalfio v. SECVD & I, Inc. · filed 2021-09-15(c)(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over his ADA claim due to the disparity in available remedies available, and thus falls within the exception of § 1367(c)(2).

Under § 1367(c)(2), an Unruh Act claim does not substantially predominate over an ADA claim merely because it offers monetary damages while the ADA offers only injunctive relief.

Chavez v. Won · filed 2020-12-15(c)(2)

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have rejected the argument that a claim under the Unruh Act predominates over a claim under the ADA simply because of the difference in available remedies. ... Thus, the Court finds Defendants fail to establish the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction on this basis.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when its potential damages substantially predominate over related ADA injunctive relief and comity and forum shopping provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Schutza v. Cuddeback · filed 2017-04-10(c)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that (1) Plaintiffs state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his federal claim under the ADA, and (2) there are otherwise exceptional circumstances — including comity and this Court’s interest in discouraging forum-shopping — for declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, with completed discovery and the absence of novel or complex state-law issues favoring retention.

McGoldrick v. Datatrak International, Inc. · filed 1999-02-26(c)(3)

Where, as here, all of the claims which fall within our original jurisdiction have been dismissed, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... In our view, the completion of discovery, as well as the dearth of novel or complex issues of State law, militate in favor of exercising our discretion to retain jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when substantial resources have already been spent on the case.

Grace v. Rosenstock · filed 1998-10-29(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim under subsection (a) if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... This case was filed over thirteen years ago, the trial has taken place, and both the parties and the court have devoted substantial resources in this action. Indeed, the original judge and at least three parties to this case have passed away since its inception, and further delays would be unwarranted. Accordingly, although the court is hard-pressed to understand why defendant Genser opted to defend this ease at trial rather than attempt to resolve it by dispositive motion, in the interests of judicial economy the court will extend supplemental jurisdiction and address plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental claims after dismissal of the original-jurisdiction claims, including when dismissal occurs after trial.

Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Company and Buck Isbell · filed 1993-09-09(c)(3)

The new statute surely did not change this practice merely by providing that the district judge “may” relinquish supplemental jurisdiction if the main claim is dismissed, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), without expressly qualifying this permission by excluding from its scope cases in which that claim is dismissed after the case had been tried.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are gone, taking account of the parties’ positions, proximity to trial, and judicial resources already invested.

Raya v. Maryatt Industries · filed 1993-07-26(c)(3)

The court recognizes that, because only state law claims remain, the court has discretion to dismiss the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Because neither party has called for dismissal, because this case is approaching trial, and because a good deal of judicial time and effort has been invested in it, this court will retain jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, absent reasons to retain them.

Delaware Health Care, Inc. v. MCD Holding Co. · filed 1997-02-20(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) allows a federal district court, in its discretion, to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. ... The parties have not raised any considerations that would cause the Court to deviate from the general rule and instead exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims. Accordingly, supplemental jurisdiction will not be exercised and plaintiffs state law claims will be dismissed.

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

Tomrell v. Leavenworth County · filed 1994-02-17(c)

Although the Court has dismissed all of the federal law claims over which the Court exercised original jurisdiction, the Court elects to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims when it has already committed substantial judicial resources to the case.

Gulley v. State of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Gary J. Maier and Laurence C. Gra · filed 1994-03-04(c)(3)

Where the district court has already committed substantial judicial resources to resolving a case, the court may, in an exercise of its discretion, retain supplemental jurisdiction to decide the state law claims on their merits.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Breen v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. · filed 1994-07-22(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint not withstanding its dismissal of all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims supporting them are dismissed.

Chamblin v. Northwood, NH, et al · filed 1995-05-08(c)

The court is hereupon entitled, at its discretion, to either retain supplemental jurisdiction and ...continue to adjudicate the state-law claims or decline same, leaving the plaintiff to seek relief in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1993) .

When all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) calls for the district court to decide whether to retain a supplemental state law claim.

Gregorich v. Lund · filed 1995-05-09(c)(3)

Under the governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the district court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. In this case, the district court has not had an opportunity to consider whether it should retain the defamation claim in the absence of Mr. Gregorich’s federal constitutional claims. Accordingly, we remand the defamation claim for this purpose.

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

Gregorich v. Lund · filed 1995-06-26(c)(3)

Under the governing statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367, the district court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claim. In this case, the district court has not had an opportunity to consider whether it should retain the defamation claim in the absence of Mr. Gregorich's federal constitutional claims. Accordingly, we remand the defamation claim for this purpose.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to retain or dismiss supplemental state claims after all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy · filed 1995-12-04(c)(3)

However, Congress has afforded broad discretion to federal courts to either retain or dismiss state claims in this situation.

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

Atchinson v. District of Columbia · filed 1996-01-19(c)(3)

The federal statute providing for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims allows a federal district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court with original jurisdiction to retain related state law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund · filed 1996-04-15(c)(3)

Because a basis for original jurisdiction existed in this case, the district court had the discretion to retain jurisdiction over the plaintiff's supplemental state law claims once it dismissed the underlying federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain eligible state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, leaving that choice to the district court’s discretion.

Gaia Technologies, Inc. v. Reconversion Technologies, Inc. · filed 1996-08-19(c)(3)

Nevertheless, § 1367(c)(3) states that dismissal of all federal claims in a ease does not require the district court to summarily dismiss the state claims as well. Indeed, the district court may retain state claims eligible for supplemental jurisdiction if all the federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

Kerr v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Bellmon Adjustors, Inc. · filed 1997-05-15(c)(3)

We note, however, that it was properly within the district court's discretion to retain jurisdiction over Kerr’s negligence claim against Bellmon.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court substantial discretion to retain or relinquish jurisdiction over a supplemental claim after the federal claim can no longer proceed.

Margarita SERAPION, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Fred H. MARTINEZ, Et Al., Defendants, Appellees · filed 1997-07-18(c)(3)

Once it had determined that the federal claim could not go forward, the district court had substantial discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1994) either to retain or to relinquish jurisdiction over the supplemental claim which the appellant had brought under local law.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain and decide state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

McMahon v. Televents Inc. Tele-Communications Inc. Tci Cablevision of California, Inc. Of Davis · filed 1997-10-29(c)(3)

The district court may, in the exercise of its discretion, retain supplemental jurisdiction and adjudicate the state law claims even after eliminating all federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain a supplemental state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims.

FISHER BY FISHER v. New York Health and Hospitals Corp. · filed 1998-01-08(c)(3)

Having dismissed the only federal claims, I have discretion to dismiss the supplemental malpractice claim as well. ... Accordingly, I will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malpractice claims.

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

City of Merced v. Fields · filed 1998-03-12(c)(3)

Second, this court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the claims within its original jurisdiction are dismissed, taking account of the work already done in the case.

Ametex Fabrics, Inc. v. Just In Materials, Inc. · filed 1998-03-17(c)(3)

By the time of the settlement of the jurisdiction-conferring claim, third-party plaintiffs and AFP had already engaged in discovery under an expedited discovery schedule and held a settlement conference before a magistrate. Therefore, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party action.

Section 1367 does not permit a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Velez-Echevarria v. Olazagasti · filed 1998-03-27(c)(3)

Since only state law claims remain and the court cannot maintain supplemental jurisdiction over them absent a federal cause, the court dismisses the entire case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with the case’s duration and shared facts supporting retention.

New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries, Inc. · filed 1998-05-15(c)(3)

Because this case has already been pending in this Court for over five years and because NJTA’s state law claims arise out of the same set of facts as did its CERCLA claim, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and addresses them on the merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a supplemental claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the claim’s clear outcome favors a decision in federal court.

Waterman v. Transport Workers' Union Local 100 · filed 1998-06-17(c)(3)

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides the district court with discretion to dismiss a claim supported only by supplemental jurisdiction if the court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. However, dismissal of the supplemental state claim is not required in these circumstances. ... Here, the underlying federal claim has been dismissed. Because the outcome of the supplemental malpractice claim is clear, it makes sense to decide this claim rather than to remand it to state court.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction to resolve meritless state claims and decline jurisdiction over surviving state claims.

Chuffo v. Ramsey · filed 1999-05-28(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a pendent state-law claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Having disposed of Plaintiffs’ federal claim, we will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Zegar for a limited purpose: to resolve her motion for summary judgment. We conclude that several of Plaintiffs’ claims survive Zegar’s motion for summary judgment. However, since all of Plaintiffs’ surviving claims are state law claims, they are hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Similarly, we decline to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state-law claims against CMS.

Section 1367(c)(3) makes dismissal of pendent state-law claims discretionary after all federal claims are eliminated, and retaining jurisdiction may be required when the remaining issues are straightforward.

Batiste v. Island Records, Inc. · filed 1999-06-21(c)(3)

Although we have stated that our “general rule” is to decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed or otherwise eliminated from a case prior to trial, this rule is neither mandatory nor absolute. ... The absence of any difficult state-law questions thus weighs heavily toward our conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to retain jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain and decide supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Barreto v. ITT World Directories, Inc. · filed 1999-07-30(a)

Plaintiffs have asserted local claims under the supplemental jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) which we will also dispose of at this time. A federal court may retain supplemental jurisdiction of the local law claims and dismiss all those allegations contained in the complaint under which plaintiffs are clearly not entitled to relief.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the parties have already spent significant resources litigating the case.

Thornton v. U.S. Department of Justice · filed 2000-04-25(c)(3)

Given the extent to which the parties have already expended significant resources in litigating this matter, the Court would exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims in any event.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissal of the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction.

NATIONAL ASS'N OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES/INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS v. BUCI Television, Inc. · filed 2000-10-19(c)

Though the jurisdiction-conferring claim has been dismissed, the court retains jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims (Counts III and V) in accordance with 28 U.S.c. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain jurisdiction over related state law claims after a federal agency whose presence supported removal is dismissed.

Parker v. Della Rocco · filed 2000-10-27(a)

Here, as in Mill Investments, the claims against the non-governmental defendants arise out of the same case as the claims against HUD, the alleged negligence of all the defendants with regard to the lead paint to which the plaintiffs daughter was exposed. Because the exercise of jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims once HUD was dismissed was proper, there is no basis for finding that the judgment of dismissal is void under Rule 60(b)(4), and thus plaintiff is not entitled to have the case reopened and remanded.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when doing so conserves judicial resources and affords a speedy resolution.

Wooten v. Pleasant Hope R-VI School District · filed 2000-11-28(c)(3)

A district court has discretion to reject supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where the court has already “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Krispin v. May Dept. Stores Co., 218 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). The Court finds, however, that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Wooten’s remaining claims will conserve judicial resources and afford the parties a speedy and just resolution of the case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent an affirmative reason to retain them, the court should dismiss them.

Doe v. Chamberlin · filed 2001-04-12(c)(3)

section 1367(c)(3) provides that the court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... As there is no affirmative reason to retain supplemental jurisdiction in the present case, the court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a defamation claim after dismissing the federal claims, and the court should do so absent significant reasons to decline jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2001-05-18(c)(3)

Against this backdrop, the court holds that federal courts should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over defamation cases absent significant reasons to the contrary.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are dismissed; the stage of litigation and whether a limitations period would bar refiling in state court inform that discretion.

O'Connor v. Commonwealth Gas Co. · filed 2001-05-30(c)(3)

Accordingly, on remand the district court may in the exercise of its discretion elect to assert supplemental jurisdiction and address the state claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain and exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the federal party whose presence supported removal is dismissed, including to enforce its procedural rules early in the case.

Parker v. Della Rocco · filed 2001-06-12

And "[w]hen [HUD] was dropped from the case, the district court still had the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims." ... Not only did the district court have the power to exert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, but the court was within its discretion to exercise that power in the circumstances of this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Schweitzer v. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2001-11-26(c)(3)

First, the District Court did not err by retaining jurisdiction over Schweitzer’s state law claims. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) provides a district court with discretion to retain jurisdiction over a claim supported only by supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Tomaiolo v. Mallinoff · filed 2002-02-19(c)(3)

Once the federal claims were dismissed, it was within the discretion of the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Tomaiolo's state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state-law claims or relinquish jurisdiction over them after the federal claims leave the case.

American Bush v. City of South Salt Lake · filed 2002-07-05(c)(3)

At that point, the district court had discretion only to retain the state claims or relinquish jurisdiction to the state court.

After all federal claims are dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) leaves the court discretion to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Soto v. Bzdel · filed 2002-07-26(c)(3)

Thus, dismissal is by no means required. Accordingly, the dismissal of Plaintiffs section 1983 claims does not necessarily “strip[ ] the court of power to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, particularly when the case has not reached trial and no exceptional circumstances favor retaining jurisdiction.

Cooney v. Consolidated Edison · filed 2002-09-06(c)(3)

This case has not yet proceeded to trial, and it presents no other exceptional circumstances that might warrant maintaining jurisdiction over the state law cause of action. In these circumstances, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim for defamation that the plaintiff may be seeking to raise, and any such claim should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when substantial work on the case would make another court duplicate that effort.

Lyons v. Adams · filed 2003-02-18(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may retain jurisdiction after dismissing all federal law claims when “substantial judicial resources have already been committed, so that sending the case to another court will cause a substantial duplication of effort.” ... Accordingly, this Court will retain jurisdiction over Lyons’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) leaves it to the district court to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Motorola Credit Corporation and Nokia Corporation v. Uzan · filed 2003-03-07(c)

In light of this changed landscape, we remand this case to the district court for it to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 allows a district court to retain supplemental state claims after dismissing the federal claim, but also permits it to decline them.

Andresen v. Diorio · filed 2003-11-12(a), (c)(3)

Having rejected on the papers the federal claim that initially created federal jurisdiction over the case, the district court might well have refused to proceed with the state claims, allowing Andresen to pursue them in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)(2000). Nonetheless, the district court did have authority and discretion to address the pendent state claims, even after dismissal of the federal claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2000); Roche, 81 F.3d at 256-57, although it turns out that some of the state-law issues are difficult and one of the claims cannot be resolved on the pleadings at least at this stage.

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

Lawrence v. Kenosha County · filed 2004-02-02(c)(3)

The statute provides that a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the pendant state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... Therefore, this Court retains jurisdiction over Lawrence’s supplemental claim and dismisses it as barred by the governmental immunity afforded by Wis. Stat. § 893.80(4).

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

North Carolina Motorcoach Ass'n Ex Rel. McGill, Inc. v. Guilford County Board of Education · filed 2004-04-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal claims, this Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, over which this Court does not have original jurisdiction. ... The Court, however, finds that it is appropriate to decide Plaintiffs’ state-law claims because these claims are closely related to Plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Talamantes v. Berkeley County School District · filed 2004-09-24(c)(3)

When the court dismisses the claim or claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it has discretion whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claim.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim that supplied original jurisdiction, including in a removed action.

Williams, Eulah v. Lampe, John · filed 2005-03-01(c)(3)

Though the district court dismissed the federal claim forming the basis for removal jurisdiction, the court prop- erly retained jurisdiction to decide this remaining issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) (district court has discretion to retain jurisdiction after dismissing all claims forming basis for federal jurisdiction); Baker v. Kingsley, 387 F.3d 655-56 (7th Cir. 2004) (applying same rule in removal context).

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim even when complete diversity is lacking.

Kreinik v. Showbran Photo, Inc. · filed 2005-11-10(a)

Having dismissed Kreinik’s federal cause of action, and complete diversity lacking between the parties, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Kreinik’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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

Stringfellow v. Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center · filed 2005-12-14(c)(3)

However, the district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of the federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

A district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing federal claims when the state-law issues are not complex and the litigation is advanced.

Sutton v. Dorman · filed 2006-04-18(c)(3)

Given the absence of any complex issues of state law and the advanced stage of the litigation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over those claims after dismissing the claims against the United States.

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

Weiss v. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. · filed 2006-05-22(c)(3)

And the dismissal of the federal claim does not otherwise defeat this Court's continuing jurisdiction over the related state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Krambeck v. Children and Families of Iowa, Inc. · filed 2006-09-05(c)(3)

Even in the absence of novel or complex questions of state law, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims upon dismissal of the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction. ... The Court finds it appropriate to dismiss Krambeck’s federal claims and exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, especially early in the case when retaining the state claims would not efficiently use judicial resources.

Schuler v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP · filed 2006-09-28(c)(3)

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, and plaintiffs DCHRA claims for 2004 and 2005 are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when the state claims plainly can be decided only one way.

Golden Years Homestead, Inc. v. Buckland · filed 2006-12-11(c)

Section 1367(c) provides that we “may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... However, one important exception to the rule holds: “if it is absolutely clear that the pendent claim can be decided in only one way, the district judge can and should decide it, to save the time of the state court.” ... That is our conclusion here, and therefore we proceed to a review of the merits of Golden Years’s state claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims against a defendant when the litigation is mature and the remaining claims are factually intertwined with claims still within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Verret v. Alabama Department of Mental Health · filed 2007-09-20(c)(3)

Therefore, this Court has discretion to dismiss the state law claims against her. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ... This Court has determined that maintaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is the more appropriate action.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain related state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ram Technical Services, Inc. v. Koresko · filed 2007-10-17(c)(3)

Congress has codified that expansive approach to supplemental jurisdiction by explicitly giving federal trial courts discretion to retain state claims even when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 USC § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claim when judicial time already invested and the passage of time favor retention.

Maguire v. Southern Homes of Palm Beach, L.L.C. · filed 2008-06-17(c)(3)

We also recognize that we could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim now that the federal claim that gave rise to original jurisdiction has been dismissed, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and that some courts dealing with ILSFDA claims have chosen to do so. Given the amount of judicial time that has been expended in analyzing these parties’ issues, and the overall passage of time involved, it would be more efficient and in the public interest for us to retain jurisdiction to dispose of the case.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed when the statutory factors and practical considerations support retention.

Mendoza v. Murphy · filed 2008-06-18(c)

Our review is guided by the statutory factors set forth in section 1367(c) and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... These interests are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and no single factor is dispositive. ... The district court, in sum, did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction over claims that were fully developed and ripe for disposition on summary judgment.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain a state-law claim after dismissal of all federal claims when the circumstances favor continued supplemental jurisdiction.

Parker v. TOWN OF CHELSEA · filed 2008-06-20(c)(3)

A federal district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court concludes, therefore, that the unique circumstances of this ease merit the Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after involuntarily dismissing federal claims, even when an amended complaint omits another federal claim.

Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2008-11-10(c)(3)

The district court properly exercised its supplemental jurisdiction after involuntarily dismissing plaintiffs’ claims under the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act. The fact that plaintiffs amended complaint did not contain their Robinson-Patman Act claims did not oust the court of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the only claim within its original jurisdiction.

Darling v. Western Thrift & Loan · filed 2009-02-20(c)(3)

The Court is satisfied that the state law tort claims and the time-barred TILA claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact—the IndyMac loan transaction—and that exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is proper, notwithstanding dismissal of the only claim over which the Court had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims when the state claims are straightforward, their disposition is clear, and dismissal would prejudice the plaintiffs.

Brach v. City of Wausau · filed 2009-05-22(c)(3)

Resolution of the majority of plaintiffs’ state law claims is clear, the remaining claims are fairly simple and dismissal would unfairly prejudice plaintiffs. Therefore, I conclude that it is proper to retain jurisdiction over this case pursuant to § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts broad discretion to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within their original jurisdiction.

McLain v. Andersen Corporation, etc. · filed 2009-06-03(c)(3)

Nonetheless, we note that a “district court holds broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss related state law claims after federal claims are dismissed.” Stewart v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 196, 481 F.3d 1034, 1046 (8th Cir. 2007), and the record adequately supports Andersen’s contention that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after the pension-related claim was dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; early dismissal before discovery weighs against retaining them.

Graham v. Barriger · filed 2009-11-17(c)(3)

I have now dismissed the plaintiffs’ federal securities law claims. The Cohill factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over claims between New York parties implicating only New York state law, particularly considering that discovery has not commenced and that the federal claims have been dismissed at the pleading stage.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after the claim supporting original jurisdiction is dismissed, including when the plaintiff dismisses it voluntarily.

Anderson v. AON CORP. · filed 2010-07-26(a)

But if there is federal jurisdiction on the date a suit is removed—as there was in this suit—the final resolu- tion of the claim that supported the suit’s presence in federal court does not necessitate remand. The dis- trict court may retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), which says that federal courts “have supple- mental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims [within the original jurisdiction] that they form part of the same case or controversy”.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, including when the remaining claim is time sensitive.

Caviezel v. Great Neck Public Schools · filed 2010-09-24(c)(3)

The Court notes that the only remaining cause of action in this case is based on New York State law, and that there is no diversity jurisdiction here. However, in view of the time sensitivity of this case, the Court elects to continue to exercise its pendant jurisdiction over the plaintiffs state law claim.

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

Bugg v. Rutter · filed 2010-12-14(c)(3)

Moreover, the district court had the discretion to retain jurisdiction over Bugg’s state law claims even after it dismissed all of Bugg’s federal claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” However, federal district courts also may retain jurisdiction and decide the state law claims on their merits, see Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 926 (8th Cir.2007), which, as explained below, is what the district court did in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Snapt, Incorporated v. Ellipse Communications, Inc · filed 2011-06-23(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court “may” decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Kuivila v. City of Conneaut · filed 2011-07-12(c)(3)

When, as here, a district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, it “may decline” to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The inclusion of the word “may” indicates that the district court has discretion.

After claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, a district court has broad discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

James Hutcherson, Jr. v. Lim · filed 2011-08-30(c)(3)

Once the district court dismissed the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) and the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court had “wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over [the] state claims.” ... Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the Hutchersons’ state law claims.

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

Allstate Insurance v. Countrywide Financial Corp. · filed 2011-10-21(c)

The Court has dismissed Allstate’s federal claims as untimely, and therefore declines to address the merits of any but the state law claims. The Court declines to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims when no reason to retain the claim applies.

Smith v. Fusion Medical SPA · filed 2011-12-09(c)(3)

None of the exceptions applies here, and I therefore decline to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claim now that the federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives district courts discretion to retain supplemental state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Delgado v. Pawtucket Police Department Ex Rel. Wunschel · filed 2012-02-09(c)(3)

Once a case is properly before a federal district court, however, that court has broad authority to retain jurisdiction over pendant state law claims even if the federal claim is later dismissed.

Section 1367(a) permits a federal court to retain jurisdiction over a related state law claim after foundational federal claims end when the claim arises from the same nucleus of facts.

Cavallaro v. UMASS MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC. · filed 2012-04-18(a)

This exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir. 1995) ("In an appropriate situation, a federal court may retain jurisdiction over state-law claims notwithstanding the early demise of all foundational federal claims."). The claim arises from the same nucleus of facts as the rest of plaintiffs' claims, the question is purely legal and, although perhaps novel, it is by no means complex; plaintiffs, after all, have not contested UMass' representation that they are hospital employees.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction when the correct resolution of the state-law claim is obvious.

Jenkins v. East St. Louis Housing Authority · filed 2012-05-01(c)(3)

Under that exception, a federal court may retain jurisdiction of supplemental state-law claims where, as in this instance, the correct resolution of the claims is obvious.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when no affirmative justification warrants retaining them.

Donegan v. Livingston · filed 2012-07-03(c)(3)

Here, I find no affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction beyond any ordinary inconvenience associated with dismissal on this ground. Therefore, as Donegan’s constitutional claims will be dismissed, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and these actions will be dismissed without prejudice to allow Donegan to re-file them in state court if she so desires.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Lacey v. Arpaio · filed 2012-08-29(c)(3)

Thus, the district court should have exercised its discretion and decided whether it would have been appropriate to keep the state claims in fed- eral court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, including when the claims have been fully developed and further litigation in another forum would be unfair.

Hayes v. District of Columbia · filed 2013-02-07(c)(3)

The Court therefore exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when no affirmative justification supports retaining them.

Kocher v. Larksville Borough · filed 2013-02-20(c)(3)

Here, there is no affirmative justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction beyond any ordinary inconvenience associated with dismissal on this ground. Therefore, as Kocher’s constitutional claims will be dismissed, I will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed its federal claims to retain supplemental jurisdiction over some state law claims when they substantially overlap with the federal claims and present no novel or unsettled state law issues.

McCaul v. Ardsley Union Free School District · filed 2013-02-26(c)(3)

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction to decide one but not all of McCaul's state law claims,2 particularly where, as here, that cause of action was "substantially the same" as the federal claim, Boyd, 336 F.3d at 75, and did not "require the district court to resolve any novel or unsettled issues of state law," Mauro v. Southern New Eng. Telcomms., Inc., 208 F.3d 384, 388 (2d Cir. 2000).

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims have been dismissed, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Port of South Louisiana v. Tri-Parish Industries, Inc. · filed 2013-02-26(c)

Even were this Court to find that no federal claims remained, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would not be mandatory. ... Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this juncture would be unfair and is unnecessary. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and declines to remand.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after the federal claims are dismissed when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Target Strike Incorporated v. Marston & Marston, I · filed 2013-04-17(c)(3)

At that point, the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity clearly tilted in favor of the district court’s exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims fail when the late stage of the case warrants retention.

Fife v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC · filed 2013-05-13(c)(3)

Although Plaintiff's federal claims are no longer viable, the Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdictional over Plaintiff's state law claims in order to rule on summary judgment. ... Further, the late stage of this proceeding warrants the retention of jurisdiction in this, the original forum chosen by the Plaintiff.

When all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) gives a district court broad discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims.

Savage v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources · filed 2013-06-06(c)(3)

Once the district court dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the district court had “wide latitude in determining whether or not to retain jurisdiction over [the] state claims.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995); see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), (c)(3) (2006). ... Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Savage’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, absent a reason to retain them.

Anderson v. Iacullo · filed 2013-08-02(c)(3)

Finding no justification to depart from the general rule requiring dismissal of supplemental state law claims in these circumstances, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing the federal claims when the claims share a common nucleus of operative fact and judicial economy, fairness, and convenience favor retention.

Armbruster v. Frost · filed 2013-08-26

Here, plaintiff’s federal and state claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact: Officer Frost’s use of force in arresting her. ... Moreover, judicial economy, fairness, and convenience weigh in favor of the Court retaining jurisdiction over the assault and battery claim because the analysis regarding whether an officer committed assault and battery is “similar to the excessive force standard applied in the Section 1983 context.” ... Hence, the Court will retain its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after all federal claims are dismissed when no relevant factor supports retaining them.

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center · filed 2013-11-08(c)(3)

Supplemental jurisdiction will not be exercised over plaintiffs’ remaining state claims against all defendants. No relevant factor supports the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

When federal claims are dismissed early, § 1367(c)(3) can make it an abuse of discretion to retain jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2014-01-10(c)(3)

Because the federal claims were properly dismissed at an early stage of the proceedings, in this case it would be an abuse of discretion for the district court to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain a related state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when the time and judicial resources already spent and settled state law support doing so.

Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938 · filed 2014-02-20(c)(3)

Given the substantial amount of time and judicial resources expended in this case and the well-settled principles of state law concerning defamation, we find no error in the district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s defamation claim, dismissing the claim on the merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Penn v. Citizens Telecom Services Co. · filed 2014-02-26(c)(3)

Although deeply sensitive to concerns of comity, under these circumstances the Court finds that none of the statutory factors provided in Section 1367(c) so strongly counsel in favor of declining to exercise jurisdiction and that the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties are best served by the Court exercising jurisdiction to resolve Penn’s remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Brodt v. City of New York · filed 2014-03-06(c)(3)

Here, plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed and none of the Cohill factors supports the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs remaining claims. Those remaining claims solely implicate New York state laws concerning religious discrimination. All parties appear to be located in New York City, and the interests of convenience, fairness and comity do not weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction. At this early stage of the litigation, there would be little to no judicial economy in retaining jurisdiction. I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the usual practice before trial is to dismiss the state claims without prejudice absent a reason to retain them.

Jarmuth v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-05-19(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the only claim over which it has original jurisdiction, it must now address whether to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice” in this case,... the Court dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the relevant discretionary factors favor retention.

Estate of Williams v. Indiana State Police · filed 2014-06-13(c)(3)

The Court concludes that the factors it must consider weigh in favor of it continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor keeping the state law claims.

Parker v. Robertson · filed 2014-07-30(c)(3)

Be that as it may, on balance, the factors favor the court’s continuing exercise of jurisdiction. ... This case has been pending since April 2011, discovery has been complete, the court has already addressed multiple dispositive motions (including the instant motion), and trial is set for October 7, 2014 (just over two months from the date of this order). Thus, the court is familiar with the facts of the case, the court has invested substantial resources overseeing the case, and it is ripe for trial. ... For all of these reasons, the court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parker’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and retaining jurisdiction may be an abuse of discretion when discovery has not begun and the state claims were only just added.

Shovah v. Mercure · filed 2014-08-27(c)(3)

While the Court has the discretion to maintain jurisdiction over a state law claim under § 1367 after all federal claims have been dismissed, this is not a proper instance to exercise such discretion. Discovery has not yet occurred and, moreover, the state law claims were only just added precisely because Plaintiff feared dismissal of his federal claims. The Court therefore finds that it would be an abuse of its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the new state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Crosby v. Strafford Cty DOC · filed 2014-09-03(c)(3)

Under these circumstances, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness all weigh in favor retaining jurisdiction over Crosby’s state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a state-law claim after disposing of the only federal claim when fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity favor doing so.

Alex D. McMillen, Plaintiff v. Concord Hospital, Defendant · filed 2014-09-22(c)(3)

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has identified the following factors that district courts should consider when determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims: (1) the interests of fairness; (2) judicial economy; (3) convenience; and (4) comity. See Camelio v. American Fed’n, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998). Here, each of those factors counsels in favor of exercising jurisdiction over McMillen’s common law wrongful termination claim. This is particularly true since his claim raises no novel issues of state law but, rather, involves a fairly straight-forward claim invoking a well-developed body of New Hampshire common law.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the age of the case and extensive discovery can support retaining it.

Howard v. City of New York · filed 2014-10-20(c)(3)

Because this ease is two years old and the parties have undergone extensive discovery, the Court elects to exercise-jurisdiction over Howard’s causes of action under the NYCHRL.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor doing so.

Bilinski v. Keith Haring Foundation, Inc. · filed 2015-03-06(c)(3)

On balance, these factors weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. While the federal claims have been dismissed and this motion is brought at an early stage in the litigation, the state law claims may be resolved without considering any novel or complex questions of state law. Convenience and- judicial economy weigh heavily in favor of resolving these straightforward tort claims as part of this motion. Thus, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are gone when substantial judicial resources have already been expended on the state claims.

Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. · filed 2015-03-12(c)(3)

The second exception applies here; the factual circumstances underlying all of Jordan’s claims are essentially the same, and this court and the Seventh' Circuit have delved deeply into and engaged extensively with those facts since this case was removed from state court. Accordingly, in its discretion, this court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Doe v. Columbia University · filed 2015-04-21(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of Plaintiffs federal claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state-law claims. ... Given the relatively early state of the case, the traditional “values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” that the Court must consider do not counsel in favor of exercising jurisdiction.

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

Lee v. Columbia/HCA of New Orleans, Inc. · filed 2015-05-20(c)(3)

As only the state law claim remains, the district court may consider whether it should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim or whether to dismiss it and allow it to be litigated in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (listing the situation in which “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” as one of the bases for a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, especially when no practical factors favor retaining the claim.

Schmidt v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC · filed 2015-05-20(c)(3)

If such jurisdiction exists it is discretionary, and I recommend that the Court decline to exercise it and instead remand.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after federal claims are dismissed when the state-law claims are not novel or complex and judicial economy favors resolving them.

Wilson v. Tregre · filed 2015-05-22(c)

We find, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Wilson’s state-law claims were neither novel nor complex. Moreover, as the district court recognized, the claims were ripe for disposition: the matter had been pending in the district court for one year, discovery had closed, and the case was set for trial less than one month after the district court’s order. We agree with the district court that it would have been a waste of judicial resources to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a court discretion to retain related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering the resources already spent, completed discovery, proximity of trial, complexity of state law, and the claims’ centrality to the case.

Starks v. City of Waukegan · filed 2015-07-24(c)(3)

Because all federal claims have been dismissed, and because the parties are not of diverse citizenship, the court .has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to relinquish jurisdiction over those state law claims. However, because the “court and the parties in this case have already expended substantial judicial resources ... and the parties have completed discovery,” because trial has been set for next month, because Illinois law governing the surviving claims is not complex or unsettled, and because the state law claims are as central to this case as were the now-dismissed federal claims, the court will retain jurisdiction over the suit and see it through to judgment.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the federal claim is dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retaining them.

Kier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC · filed 2015-08-17(c)

District courts may retain supplemental jurisdiction, however, if factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support it. ... Here, none of the above factors support this Court’s retention of supplemental jurisdiction over Kier’s remaining ICFA and money had and received claims. ... Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kier’s remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and absent a compelling reason to retain them, the court may dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. v. Schaden · filed 2015-09-17(c)(3)

Finding no compelling reason here to retain jurisdiction, the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when fairness and convenience favor retention.

Brailsford v. Wateree Community Action, Inc. · filed 2015-09-25(c)(3)

In regard to Plaintiffs two remaining state law claims, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that this Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction in- the interest of fairness and convenience.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may retain related state-law claims under § 1367 when judicial economy favors doing so.

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Dimon · filed 2016-01-06(c)(3)

Regarding amicus’s second argument, “[w]hen, as in this case, a federal court dismisses all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it must reassess its jurisdiction over the [rest of the] case by considering several related factors—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 56 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, judicial economy was well-served by the District Court’s discretionary exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ related state-law claims—as detailed below, such claims are clearly deficient under Delaware law. Accordingly, the District Court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

After summary judgment on all federal claims, the district court may retain a supplemental state law claim or dismiss it without prejudice.

Zelaya v. County of Los Angeles · filed 2016-01-11(c)(3)

Upon remand, having properly granted summary judgment on all federal claims, the district court, in its discretion, may decide whether or not to continue jurisdiction over the supplemental state law assault and battery claim, or dismiss it without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy favors keeping the case.

Palatkevich v. Choupak · filed 2016-01-21(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” ... Though I am loathe to reward Plaintiffs’ tactics in this matter — in particular the filing of an utterly insufficient civil RICO claim to get their foot in the door of federal court — this case has come too far here to send it back to New York State Supreme Court. I have, by this point, delved deeply into both the issues presented by the parties and the record, and principles of judicial economy weigh heavily in favor of trying those issues in front of a judge who is now intimately familiar with them..

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, with judicial economy informing that choice.

Hall v. Greystar Management Services, L.P. · filed 2016-04-12(c)(3)

Having considered the factors outlined in Shanaghan and the state of the record, the Court has determined that it will retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs conversion claim. The Court bases this determination largely on concerns for efficiency and judicial economy.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, and fairness may justify retaining them.

Long v. Armstrong County · filed 2016-05-31(c)(3)

A District Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Here, all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims — that is, all of the claims over which this District Court had original jurisdiction — will be dismissed. Considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness do not provide an affirmative justification for maintaining Plaintiffs’ state law claims. As such, the Court will dismiss 'these state law claims without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) does not permit a court to retain supplemental claims when it dismisses the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; those claims must be dismissed without prejudice.

Estate of Cummings Ex Rel. Montoya v. United States · filed 2016-06-07(a)

If a district court dismisses the federal claims on the merits, it can as a matter of discretion exercise supplemental jurisdiction. But when a district court dismisses the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks such discretion and must dismiss the supplemental claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to retain a state-law claim after dismissing all claims over which they had original jurisdiction.

Hall v. Greystar Management Services, L.P. · filed 2016-06-15(c)

Indeed, the supplemental-jurisdiction statute itself makes the Court’s discretion abundantly clear; providing that a distinct court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if ... the district court has-dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (emphasis added).

Section 1367(a) gives a district court no discretion to retain supplemental claims when it dismisses the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Estate of Vera Cummings v. United States · filed 2016-06-24(a)

If a district court dismisses the federal claims on the merits, it can as a matter of discretion exercise supplemental jurisdiction. But when a district court dismisses the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks such discretion and must dismiss the supplemental claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 requires a district court to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims.

Johannes Martin v. Living Essentials, LLC · filed 2016-06-30(c)(3)

The district court thus was correct in dismissing Martin’s claim under the Lanham Act, and at that point the court should have decided whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois statutory claim.

Section 1367(a) does not allow a district court to retain supplemental claims after dismissing the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; it must dismiss the supplemental claims without prejudice.

Estate of Vera Cummings v. United States · filed 2016-07-08(a)

If a district court dismisses the federal claims on the merits, it can as a matter of discretion exercise supplemental jurisdiction. But when a district court dismisses the federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks such discretion and must dismiss the supplemental claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the federal claims are resolved when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Thomas v. Dillard · filed 2016-08-10(c)(3)

Here, the factors of judicial economy, convenience and fairness all point strongly toward retaining jurisdiction. ... To require Plaintiff to now refile the state law claims based upon the same facts is uneconomical, inconvenient and unfair.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim after dismissing the federal claims with prejudice.

Dupre v. Mountain West Financial, Inc. · filed 2017-02-23

The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Dupre’s promissory estoppel claim after dismissing with prejudice Dupre’s federal claims. See Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (granting district courts supplemental jurisdiction over claims related to those over which district courts have original jurisdiction).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Giuliani v. Springfield Township · filed 2017-02-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the federal claims in this matter, I now have the discretion regarding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Based on the aforementioned factors, I will retain jurisdiction over these claims. The present case was. filed more than six years ago. Discovery is complete and summary judgment motions were briefed more than one year ago, but stayed pending the outcome of the parties’ ongoing settlement discussions. Retaining the state court claim will not significantly increase any judicial burden, whereas dismissal will result in fundamental unfairness to plaintiffs. Therefore, I will jurisdiction over count V under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

After dismissing the claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over a closely related state law claim when judicial economy and convenience justify deciding it.

Horvath Towers III, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board of Butler Township · filed 2017-03-29(c)(3)

The court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. ... Thus, the court has, effectively, decided the state law claim in deciding the TCA claim. ... In the interest of judicial economy and convenience, the court will enter final judgment in favor of the Board on Horvath’s state law claim, applying Pennsylvania law.