28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

de Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Ltd. Partnership · filed 2017-04-18(c)(3)

Although it would be proper to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action without prejudice pursuant to § 1367(c)(3), it is appropriate to’ decline to do so in the circumstances of this case. The Shanaghan factors, applied. here, point persuasively to the conclusion that it is appropriate to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims when the correct resolution of the remaining state law claims is clearly apparent.

Boogaard v. National Hockey League · filed 2017-06-05(c)(3)

Nor is remand justified under § 1367(c)(3). ... The third exception applies here because the resolution of Boogaard’s state law claims is “clearly apparent.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after disposing of the sole federal claim when the closely related state claims have a clear outcome and judicial economy favors deciding them.

Maher v. Texas Roadhouse Management Corp. · filed 2017-06-30(c)(3)

Regardless; the allegations'supporting the state law claims are so closely connected to those supposedly supporting plaintiff’s ADEA claim, and the outcome so clear, the court will continue to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction as a matter of judicial economy, addressing defendants’ motion on those claims as well.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining contract claims after disposing of the federal claims.

Ulloa v. Fancy Farms, Inc. · filed 2017-08-09(c)(3)

Even if this Court lacks federal question subject matter jurisdiction over the breach of contract claims, the Court finds that it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

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

Salustio v. 106 Columbia Deli Corp. · filed 2017-08-30(c)(3)

Here, at least three of the Gibbs factors counsel against dismissing plaintiffs’ NYLL claims. It would be grossly inefficient to retry the NYLL claims with the identical evidence in state court. It would be inconvenient to both sides. ... The Court thus will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ NYLL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with limited briefing of the state claims weighing against retaining them.

"Q"-Lungian Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Windsor Locks · filed 2017-09-18(c)(3)

Because plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claim will be dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim for an administrative review of the denial of the permit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see, e.g., Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2013). Especially because the parties have devoted very little briefing to this state law claim, I conclude that the exercise of continuing supplemental jurisdiction would not be appropriate in lieu of allowing the parties to resolve any remaining dispute before a Connecticut state court.

After all federal claims are dismissed, retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that present substantial questions of state law may be an abuse of discretion; those questions are better resolved in state court.

Wilber v. Curtis · filed 2017-09-20(c)(3)

We have also held that, under this standard, it can be an abuse of discretion -- if no federal claim remains -- for a district court to retain jurisdiction over a pendent state law claim when that state law claim presents a substantial question of state law that is better addressed by the state courts. ... Thus, rather than attempt, with respect to these issues, to resolve the parties' disagreements about how best to construe state law in light of the record, we follow our approach in Desjardins. We thus vacate the grant of summary judgment to all three officers as to Wilber's claim for false imprisonment, as well as to Wilber's claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution to Kinsella and Curtis, and remand these claims to state court.

A court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim before trial when fairness and convenience justify doing so.

Bozic v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 2017-10-16(c)(3)

Although the federal claim was dismissed before trial, the Magistrate Judge did not abuse her discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Bozic’s state law claims. It would be unfair and inconvenient to require the Appellee to continue to litigate Bozic’s meritless claims, and it would unnecessarily use the resources of the Pennsylvania state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (federal court has supplemental jurisdiction over related claims forming part of the same case or controversy); Bright, 443 F.3d at 286 (if federal claims are dismissed before trial, federal court must decline supplemental jurisdiction unless (as here) judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties justify it).

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

Koul v. Strong Mem'l Hosp. · filed 2017-10-17(c)(3)

If the federal claims are abandoned or dismissed, the district court "may" decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Section 1367(c)(3). The rule, however, is a flexible one and a district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction depending on the particular facts of the case. ... This court declines to remand the remaining state law claim to state court and will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the claim, which is now the subject of defendants' motion for summary judgment.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court generally must decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining them.

Stone v. Martin · filed 2017-11-22(c)(3)

In addition, the Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice the state constitutional and state law claims. It “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over state law claims if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It “must decline” to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances “unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original) (quoting Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (3d Cir.1995)). The Court here reasonably found that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties did not provide a justification for keeping this case in federal court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when economy, convenience, comity, and fairness weigh against retaining them.

Zohar CDO 2003-1, Ltd. v. Patriarch Partners, LLC · filed 2017-12-29(c)(3)

In this case, section 1367(c)(3) applies-this Court "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." ... In accord with that principle, this Court finds that interests of economy, convenience, comity, and fairness weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

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

Estate of Aaron Bruce Cadman v. Dennis, et al. · filed 2018-01-29(c)(3)

The sole basis for this court’s jurisdiction over the state-law claims is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... These factors weigh in favor of the court retaining jurisdiction over the state-law claims in this case. ... The court will accordingly address the state-law claims on their merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the discretionary factors favor retention.

Thomas v. State · filed 2018-02-13(c)(3)

When all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the general rule in this circuit is to decline exercising jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. ... Here, the factors weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after all federal claims are dismissed before trial, absent a reason to retain jurisdiction.

Norris v. Serrato · filed 2018-02-16(c)(3)

With the granting of judgment in the Police Defendants’ favor for all federal causes of action, the Court addresses whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Finding no justification for departing from that “usual practice”7 in this case, Plaintiff’s state law claims against both the Police Defendants and the State Defendants are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding them.

Williams v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene · filed 2018-03-12(c)(3)

Despite the general presumption, the Court concludes that, in the interest of judicial economy, it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams's NYSHRL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when fairness and judicial efficiency favor retaining them.

Broker Genius, Inc. v. Volpone · filed 2018-05-11(c)(3)

Accordingly, in the interest of "fairness [and] judicial efficiency," the Court shall exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining, state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity even when diversity is absent.

Catano v. Capuano · filed 2019-11-18(c)(3)

Defendant also fails to consider that, if the parties are not diverse, the Court may in its discretion retain the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the Court dismissed the federal question over which the Court had its original jurisdiction. ... Thus, even if Defendant is not diverse, the Court is inclined to retain jurisdiction because of the time expended litigating this case, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

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

Reilly v. Ottawa Cnty., Mich. · filed 2021-09-02(c)

That said, all of the other factors weigh in favor of the district court’s decision to retain jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in exercising jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Section 1367 does not require a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim if the federal claim is rejected, particularly after the court has reviewed the record and decided the merits.

County School Bd. of Henrico County, Vir. v. RT · filed 2006-06-14(c)(3)

Nothing in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, requires the Court to decline jurisdiction, and this is particularly so given that this Court has reviewed the entire record and issued a decision on the merits of the State Hearing Officer’s decision.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits, but does not require, dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after the claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Bay Shore Union Free School District v. T. Ex Rel. R. · filed 2005-12-21(c)(3)

Dismissal is permissive, not mandatory—“district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ...”

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

Mannella v. County of Allegheny · filed 2003-05-08(c)

W e therefore do not believe that a vague reference to “comity” will call into question the District Court’s discretion to maintain jurisdiction and dismiss with prejudice Mannella’s state constitutional law claims along with her other claims in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims, but dismissal of the remaining state claims without prejudice is ordinarily the better practice.

Wegbreit v. Marley Orchards Corp. · filed 1991-11-25(c)(3)

Although the Court may retain jurisdiction, the better practice is to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims, but the better practice is to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

Lekvold v. Westinghouse Hanford Co. · filed 1992-02-25(c)(3)

Although the Court may retain jurisdiction, the better practice is to dismiss the state claims without prejudice.

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

Ackerman v. National Property Analysts, Inc. · filed 1992-09-09(c)(3)

In this case, in light of the numerous parties and claims and because this case has already been removed from New York State Court and finally, because plaintiffs may be entitled to revive their time-barred federal claims under a theory of recoupment should defendants decide to file counter-claims against plaintiffs, and in the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants, the Court elects to retain this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits the court to retain supplemental state claims when a federal claim remains viable.

White v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 1992-09-15(c)(3)

However, given that the Title VII claim is still viable, these pendent claims will not be dismissed.

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

Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pacific Company · filed 1992-10-07(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) provides that "[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if--the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The exercise of pendent jurisdiction to hear state claims is within the discretion of the federal district court.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain a supplemental state law claim after dismissal of the federal claims, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Imagineering, Inc. v. Kiewit Pacific Co. · filed 1992-10-07(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) provides that “[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim ... if — the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to send this case to state court for a determination of that state law claim.

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

Evans v. City of Marlin, Texas · filed 1993-04-13(c)

On remand, the district court will not have the federal question "hook" on which it can hang the pendent state law claims. However, this is not fatal to the exercise of federal jurisdiction. The court is vested with discretion to decide whether or not supplemental jurisdiction continues to be appropriate.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over local law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Merino Vinas v. Boto · filed 1993-07-02(c)(3)

In determining whether to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, a federal court should consider judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants. ... The more economic use of judicial resources would.be for this Court to continue to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ local law claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of the federal claim.

Iris Statland v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 1993-07-16(c)(3)

This almost ends Statland’s case — but she had some state law claims that were dismissed for lack of supplemental jurisdiction once the district court decided that Section 411(b) did not give Statland a federal cause of action. The court could have retained jurisdiction over Statland’s state law claims to decide that they are preempted by federal law; since it did not, we will, in order to conserve the resources of Illinois state courts.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after the federal claim is dismissed when judicial economy favors resolving all claims in one court.

Ellis v. Gelson's Markets Arden-Mayfair, Inc. · filed 1993-07-29(c)(3)

A district court may exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims despite the fact that the claim which served as the basis for federal jurisdiction is dismissed. ... It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to retain jurisdiction, because a state court would have been bound to give the same res judicata effect to the prior federal judgment, and judicial economy favored the resolution of all the claims in a single proceeding by one court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims against a defendant after dismissing the federal claim against that defendant when judicial economy and comity favor retention.

Mobley v. Kelly Kean Nissan, Inc. · filed 1993-09-08(c)

However, the situation at hand compels us to exercise our discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ common law claims against Skrapits. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Several of the claims going forward in this case involve the same set of facts that animate the state claims against Skrapits. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial economy and comity, we will not relinquish our supplemental jurisdiction despite the dismissal of the federal claim against Skrapits.

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

Daniels v. BD. OF TR. OF HERINGTON MUN. HOSP. · filed 1993-12-02(c)(3)

Considering the time and effort the parties have spent on this dispute while it has been pending in this court, the court finds judicial economy and convenience to the parties are served by retaining jurisdiction. Thus, the County's motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) is denied.

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

Daniels v. Board of Trustees · filed 1993-12-02(c)(3)

Considering the time and effort the parties have spent on this dispute while it has been pending in this court, the court finds judicial economy and convenience to the parties are served by retaining jurisdiction. Thus, the County’s motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) is denied.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claim falls away when the remaining state-law issue is straightforward and judicial economy favors retention.

Rivkin v. County of Montgomery · filed 1993-12-02(c)

We have reflected carefully on whether to exercise our discretion to decline the exercise of such jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (e) of § 1367, and have concluded that the issue remaining, far from raising “novel or complex” issues of state law, presents a very straightforward problem of applying what has seemed to us to be a simple act of construing a fee statute. ... Given the large investment of time (and therefore money) that both sides have invested in this action, we also believe that interests of judicial, public and private economy weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to complete adjudication of state-law claims after the federal party leaves the suit.

Colony Nyro Partners, L.P. v. Waterside Development Corp. · filed 1993-12-13

Although there is now no federal party to this suit based on state claims, jurisdiction to complete adjudication of this matter is found under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a district court to resolve a foreordained state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. v. Sanwa Business Credit Corporation and the Sanwa Bank, Limited · filed 1994-02-08(c)(3)

The supplementary jurisdiction authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, however, permits a district court, after dismissing the federal claim, to wrap up a suit whose state-law component is foreordained.

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

Martin v. Rubel Enterprises · filed 1994-03-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367, the court was permitted, though not required, to reach the merits of Martin's quiet title claim against Rubel.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain and decide a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim that supported original jurisdiction.

Vicron Ii, Inc. v. Wellcorp International · filed 1994-07-15(c)(3)

When the district court dismissed the RICO claim prior to trial, it had discretion to retain and grant relief on the common law fraud claim under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3). The district court expressly decided to exercise its jurisdiction over Primark. Such an exercise was proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain state claims after dismissing all federal claims, including when clear state law and judicial economy favor retaining them.

Tillman v. M & I Bank, David Kohlmeyer, Christine A. Seitz, and Racine County · filed 1994-08-05(c)(3)

The statute on supplemental jurisdiction, which codifies judge-made principles, grants the district court discretion to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims once the federal claims have been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3); Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 6 F.3d 1176, 1182 (7th Cir.1993). Generally, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state claims if the federal claims were dismissed before trial unless unusual circumstances exist. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966); Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos. Inc., No. 93-3619, slip op. at 10 (7th Cir. July 21, 1994). Specifically, where the correct disposition of a state law claim is so clear as a matter of state law that the resolution of difficult issues of state law and further trial proceedings are unnecessary, the interest in judicial economy warrants retention of the pendent claims. Wright, No. 93-3619, slip op. at 12; Brazinski, 6 F.3d at 1182. In this case, jurisdiction was properly retained over Tillman's state tort claims for malicious prosecution and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; because there was no genuine issue of material fact raised with respect to any of these claims, they could have been resolved without further trial proceedings at the summary judgment stage.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a supplemental state-law claim after the federal claim fails when the state claim can be easily resolved.

Kevin Griffin, Dennis Holmbeck, Roger Myers v. Air Line Pilots Association, International · filed 1994-08-10(c)(3)

Having decided the federal claim, there is considerable question whether we should even exercise our jurisdiction over the pendent state claim; at this point, it is appended to nothing, since we have determined the federal claim is not viable. ... But, as the district court determined, the state claim is easily resolved — it is preempted by the Railway Labor Act.

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

Purgess v. Sharrock · filed 1994-08-17(c)(3)

Moreover, the discretion implicit in the word "may" in subdivision (c) of Sec. 1367 permits the district court to weigh and balance several factors, including considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to litigants.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice after no viable federal claims remain.

Porter v. Jameson · filed 1995-05-12(c)(3)

Because there no longer exists any viable federal cause(s) of action and complete diversity does not exist, the court finds that Plaintiffs state law causes of action are due to be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after reaching the merits of the federal claims.

RX Pharmacies Plus, Inc. v. Weil · filed 1995-04-25(c)(3)

Colorado argues that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because the merits of the plaintiffs’ federal claims have been reached, the court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain related state-law claims after resolving the federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor doing so.

Velasquez-Campuzano v. Marfa Nat. Bank · filed 1995-06-09

Of course, these claims are properly before this court pursuant to its power to hear supplemental questions of state law. However, the exercise of this power is discretionary. The decision must be based on "considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants." United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218, 228 (1966); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Given that this court has decided the questions of federal law raised here, it is at least arguable that this court should dismiss the remaining state law claims. This court chooses to exercise its discretion to hear the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when the federal claims remain in the case.

Delaware Health Care, Inc. v. MCD Holding Co. · filed 1995-06-30(a)

Because the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims, it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims at this time. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same transaction and occurrence as the federal claims.

Dunklin v. Lowndes County · filed 1995-06-30(a)

These purported violations transpired during the same transaction and occurrence as the alleged constitutional deprivations; therefore, the court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that incorporates the same factual allegations as a claim within the district court’s original jurisdiction.

Banks v. Chicago Board of Education · filed 1995-07-21(a)

Because Count II alleges by reference the identical factual situation alleged in Count I, there is sufficient connection between the factual basis for the civil rights claim and the factual basis for the wrongful termination claim for this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over Count II under Section 1367.

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

Door Systems, Inc. v. Overhead Door Systems, Inc. · filed 1995-10-30(c)(3)

Having balanced all the factors, the Court finds that retention of the pendent claims is warranted. Thus, this Court will continue to exercise jurisdiction over this matter and will decide the state law claims in Counts IV and V.

Section 1367(c) gives the district court discretion to dismiss or retain remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are gone.

Flint Electric Membership Corp. v. Whitworth · filed 1995-11-15(c)

Even though no federal rights remain to be determined in these cases, the EMCs may be permitted to pursue the state law cause of action raised in Count Three of their amended complaints in the federal forum. The decision of whether to dismiss a complaint still containing state law issues after all federal causes evaporate is within the district court's sound discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); McCoy v. Webster, 47 F.3d 404, 408 (11th Cir.1995).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decide supplemental state-law claims on the merits after dismissal of the federal claims when the state-law claims plainly fail.

Kerr v. Pieschek · filed 1996-01-08(c)(3)

Therefore, it is not clear whether the court was ruling upon the merits of these claims or exercising its discretion, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all the claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed. ... The present case presents an exception to the general rule that when federal claims are dismissed before trial that the district court should decline jurisdiction over state law claims, see United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), because it is obvious that Kerr cannot prevail upon his state law claims against Pieschek and Bongers.

When federal claims are dismissed, a district court must consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the case’s circumstances before deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.

Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co. · filed 1996-02-26(c)(3)

The court abused its discretion by failing to conduct the appropriate death knell analysis to determine if it should retain jurisdiction over the pendent state claims despite having previously dismissed the federal cause of action.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state assault and battery claim when it is sufficiently connected to a Title VII claim through the same workplace events, even if the claims name different defendants.

Lynam v. Foot First Podiatry Centers, P.C. · filed 1996-03-12(a)

We hold, therefore, that the assault and battery claim is sufficiently connected to the Title VII claim against the corporate defendants to confer jurisdiction on the Court to hear the state claim.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, § 1367 permits a district court to retain related state-law claims in its discretion, considering comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Daniel J. Roche Et Ux. Valerie Roche v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company · filed 1996-04-16(c)(3)

In deciding whether or not to retain jurisdiction on such an occasion, the trial court must take into account concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the like. ... Here, the district court’s resolve to go forward with the state-law claims fell squarely within the realm of its discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the claim supporting original jurisdiction is gone when judicial economy and fairness favor retention.

Mizuna, Ltd. v. Crossland Federal Savings Bank, AKA Crossland Savings Fsb, Royal Realty Co., a Partnership · filed 1996-07-25(c)(3)

Though the court also had the discretion to remand the case to state court, ... it properly exercised its discretion to retain jurisdiction: three judicial officers had already expended substantial resources on the case over a year’s time, and an order had issued that contemplated an imminent resolution; in addition, returning the ease to state court would facilitate Mizuna’s fairly bald effort to avoid an unfavorable outcome that the court had already foreshadowed, and would be grossly unfair to Royal.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissal of the sole federal claim when the case’s longevity favors doing so.

Menuskin v. Williams · filed 1996-07-31(c)(3)

Though the dismissal of the RICO claim, the only federal cause of action pleaded, would under many circumstances prompt the Court to decline jurisdiction because of the predominate nature of the remaining state law claims, that is not so here. Given the longevity of the case, the Court finds this an appropriate opportunity to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 supports supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when their facts overlap sufficiently with federal claims.

Heffler v. Joe Bells Auto Service · filed 1996-10-28

Because the factual aspects of the federal claims overlap with elements of the state claims, there is a sufficient relationship between the federal and state claims to support the exercise of this court’s pendent jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain a related state-law claim after the federal claims have ended when doing so serves economy, convenience, and fairness.

Maltzman v. Friedman · filed 1996-11-21(c)

Even if we were to consider the issue sua sponte, however, the district court's decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Griffin's cross-claim was not an abuse of discretion because it advanced the values of economy, convenience, and fairness.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain a related state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy supports deciding both claims together.

Richerson v. United States · filed 1996-12-18(c)(3)

The district court's exercise of jurisdiction over the state law claim against Dalpra did not result in a significant waste of judicial resources because it involved the same predicate facts as did the federal FTCA claim against the USVA. Therefore, considering the factor of judicial economy, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to address the claim against Dalpra at the same time as it disposed of the federal claim based on the same underlying facts.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over closely related state law claims against a defendant even after federal claims against that defendant are dismissed, when federal claims remain against other defendants.

Losquadro v. FGH Realty Credit Corp. · filed 1997-03-15(a)

Applying these standards, the Court, in an exercise of its discretion, declines to dismiss the remaining state, law claims against FGH on supplemental jurisdiction grounds. Assuming that the plaintiffs are unable to re-plead their ERISA claims against FGH, their federal claims still exist as to the remaining defendants. Accordingly, because the issues between the federal claims against these defendants and the state law claims against FGH are so closely linked, the Court finds that it would be more efficient to address these claims in a single litigation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor deciding them on the merits.

Green v. City of Paterson · filed 1997-06-26(c)(3)

Although the state law claims in the instant matter could be dismissed pursuant to Section 1367, considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness direct that the state law claims be addressed on the merits.

Section 1367 does not require dismissal of supplemental state law claims when all federal claims are resolved before trial; the court may retain them when it has already become familiar with a substantial record.

Vakharia v. Swedish Covenant Hospital · filed 1997-11-18(c)(3)

Ordinarily, if a court rules against a plaintiff on all federal claims short of trial, the pendent state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may then pursue those claims in state court. But 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not compel dismissal.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering convenience and whether state law is settled.

Whiting v. Weslowski · filed 1998-09-23(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court must decide whether to exercise its discretion and retain jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1998). ... Refusing to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims would not serve the parties’ convenience. Additionally, the status of the laws required to resolve these state law issues are well-settled in North Carolina and do not require this Court to anticipate decisions of the North Carolina courts. Therefore, the Court will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related claim after dismissing the claim supporting original jurisdiction.

Warg v. Reno · filed 1998-09-10(c)

Because plaintiffs Privacy Act claims are closely related to her Title VII claim, this court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Privacy Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Having dismissed Plaintiff Warg’s Title VII claim, the court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over non-original claims pursuant to Section 1367(c). ... Accordingly, the Court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on its Title VII claim and retains supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs Privacy Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when fairness and efficiency favor retention.

Mengers-0'Brien v. Oyster Riv Sch Dis · filed 1998-10-08(c)

Furthermore, although the court will often exercise its discretion to dismiss state-law claims once all federal claims have been dismissed, considerations of fairness and efficiency weigh in favor of retaining jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state- law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain a related claim after it dismisses all claims supporting original jurisdiction, including when original jurisdiction rested on diversity of citizenship.

Stevenson, Ferdinan v. Severs, Charles A. · filed 1998-10-27(c)(3)

Indeed, the statute plainly provides for the exercise of discre- tion whenever "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" irrespective of whether original jurisdiction arose from diversity of citizenship or existence of a federal question. 28 U.S.C. s 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after resolving the federal claim.

Ward v. Lilly · filed 1999-03-19(c)(3)

We also find no error in the district court's decision to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Ward's remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to exercise discretion to decide remaining state-law issues after resolving the claim that supplied federal jurisdiction.

EklecCo v. Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417 Union Security Funds · filed 1999-03-22(c)(3)

The district court expressed its willingness to resolve the vestigial state law issues after deciding the preemption claim upon which removal was predicated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619 n. 7, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988). In that exercise of discretion, we follow suit.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain a related state-law claim despite the weakness or dismissal of the federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining jurisdiction.

Justiana v. Niagara County Department of Health · filed 1999-04-02(c)(2), (c)(3)

In light of the weakness of the federal constitutional claim in relation to the state law claim, the Court has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim pursuant to § 1367(c)(2) or (3). However, the Court in its discretion has determined that it is appropriate to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim for several reasons related to judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decide whether to retain jurisdiction over a remaining claim after the federal claims are resolved.

Adair v. City of Kirkland · filed 1999-04-30(c)

The district court may exercise its discretion as to whether to retain jurisdiction over the remaining case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Grand Rapids Plastics, Inc. v. Lakian · filed 1999-08-12(c)(3)

The district court had supplemental jurisdiction over Grand Rapids's state law tortious interference claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which explicitly allows district courts to dismiss pendent state law claims if all federal claims have been dismissed. ... Accordingly, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in addressing the claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state claims against defendants whose federal claims have been dismissed while federal claims remain against other defendants.

Beall v. Leavitt, et al. · filed 1999-08-31(c)(3)

Nevertheless, regardless of whether the court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims against the City, et al. is discretionary or mandatory, the circumstances of this case warrant the exercise of such jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor keeping them.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Welfare Fund v. Frascone · filed 1999-09-24(c)(3)

Where all claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction have been dismissed, leaving only state law claims in the action, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... It would hardly serve the ends of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness to the litigants, to send a case in such a posture back to state court.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after resolving all federal claims.

Cardenas v. Fire & Police Commission of Milwaukee · filed 2000-01-27(c)(3)

Though the court granted the FPC and the City summary judgment as to the federal claims, the court, using its discretion, retains jurisdiction over the pendent state claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a state-law claim against a defendant whose federal claims have been dismissed when federal claims remain against another defendant, with judicial economy supporting retention.

O'CONNOR v. Metro Ride, Inc. · filed 2000-03-10(c)(3)

Although the Court has dismissed the federal claims against Metro Ride, the Court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim against it, and in the interest of judicial economy the Court will do so.

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

Patton v. AFG Industries, Inc. · filed 2000-03-29(c)(3)

In these circumstances, the court finds that judicial economy, convenience and fairness would be served by retaining jurisdiction. Count III, the state law claim of Mr. Patton’s complaint, will not be dismissed.

Section 1367(c) permits the district court to decide whether to retain jurisdiction over state law claims after the federal claims have been resolved.

No. 98-5283 · filed 2000-05-19(c)

The District Court did not address the officers' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims in its decision. Therefore, although we will affirm the grant of summary judgment on the federal claims, we will remand to the District Court so that it may evaluate the state claims and determine whether or not to retain jurisdiction of them under 28 U.S.C. S 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the circumstances favor keeping them.

New York Transportation, Inc. v. Naples Transportation, Inc. · filed 2000-10-10(c)(3)

Nevertheless, district courts have broad discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even after all federal claims have been dismissed. ... Given the time and effort already invested in this matter by the parties and the Court, the burden that serving multiple defendants in a state court action would impose on plaintiffs and the serious nature of plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court elects to retain jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering the case’s progress and whether the state law issues are difficult or unsettled.

Bogosian v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 200 · filed 2001-02-22(c)(3)

Although I dismiss the § 1983 claims, I exercise my discretion to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This case is well over a year old, discovery is closed, a trial date has been set, and the remaining claims do not implicate any difficult or unsettled issue of state law. Under these circumstances it is unnecessary to delay the resolution of this case by remanding it to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, after considering its statutory factors, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, and possible forum manipulation.

Kushner v. Woodard Hall & Primm · filed 2001-03-30(c)

The general rule that when all federal claims in an action are dismissed prior to trial, a district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, is not absolute. McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d 507, 519 (5th Cir. 1998). The court should consider the factors in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, as well as whether the plaintiff has attempted to manipulate the forum in which his action is heard. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 357 (1988). Under the facts of this case, the district court did not err in denying the motion to remand.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves district courts discretion to retain supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Szumny v. American General Finance, Incorporated and American Security Insurance Company · filed 2001-04-13(c)(3)

The decision to retain supplemental claims is left to the discretion of the district court.

Section 1367 leaves a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim even if an amendment deletes the only federal claim.

Box v. Occidental Chem · filed 2001-07-02(c)(3)

In any event, even if it had allowed the amendment to delete the only federal claim raised, the district court had discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Box’s state-law claim. ... It did not abuse that discretion.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to retain related state-law claims after dismissal of all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Horwitz v. Board of Education of Avoca School District No. 37, John W. Sloan, Venette Biancalana, and Dorothy Ball · filed 2001-07-26(c)

The issue becomes whether the district court should have decided not to exercise its jurisdiction over the defamation claim based upon § 1367(c), which allows a district court not to assume supplemental jurisdiction over a claim when it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Judges are permitted the discretion to determine whether a state law claim should not be dismissed because of other considerations like judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... In this instance, Horwitz’s claim was ripe, Illinois law regarding defamation well-settled and straightforward, the litigation was over two-years-old, and discovery had been closed. We see no reason why the district court should have declined its right to assert jurisdiction over Horwitz’s state-based defamation claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain a state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim when the parties’ investment of time and the interests of economy, convenience, and fairness favor doing so.

Cooper v. Cape May County Board of Social Services · filed 2001-11-27(c)(3)

The Court having determined that Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 disposes of the federal issue in this case, leaving the remaining state law claim under CEPA, over which this court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Based on the substantial investment of time by the parties and in the interest of “economy, convenience and fairness to the litigants,” the Court believes that the prudent decision is to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining claim under CEPA.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain related state-law claims after the original-jurisdiction claims are resolved when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Metlife Capital Corp. v. Water Quality Insurance Syndicate · filed 2002-03-20(c)(3)

In light of these factors, and consistent with the principles of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, the Court could and would have exercised its discretion and retained the non-federal claims against Westchester under supplemental jurisdiction in the interest of preserving scarce judicial resources.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain and decide a related state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International · filed 2002-04-03(c)

Although the district court could have dismissed Lozen's statelaw claim after dismissing the Carmack Amendment claim, it did not abuse its discretion by choosing to entertain the merits of the state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain and decide supplemental state law claims after disposing of all federal claims when it has invested substantial judicial resources or the state law claims have a clear resolution.

B.S. Ex Rel. Schneider v. Board of School Trustees, Fort Wayne Community Schools · filed 2003-01-03(c)

Having disposed of all of the Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court may, in its discretion, eschew the “usual practice” of dismissing without prejudice the remaining state law claims that are here under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), particularly when it “has already invested substantial judicial resources” or when the resolution of the state law claims is clear. ... Because both factors are present here, we turn to the Plaintiffs remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental state law claims after disposing of all federal claims when substantial judicial resources have been invested or the state law claims have a clear resolution.

Wagner Ex Rel. Wagner-Garay v. Fort Wayne Community Schools · filed 2003-03-19(c)

Having disposed of all of Wagner’s federal claims, the Court may, ... eschew the “usual practice” of dismissing without prejudice the remaining state law claims that are here under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), particularly when it “has already invested substantial judicial resources” or when the resolution of the state law claims is clear. ... Because both factors are present here, we turn to address Wagner’s remaining state law defamation claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decide supplemental state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when the state law issues are settled and doing so is efficient.

Sullivan v. Bornemann · filed 2003-04-28(c)(3)

I have supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims by virtue of the federal claims asserted under § 1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... In this case, I conclude that it is appropriate for me to decide the state claims before me. ... Finally, I conclude that the state claims can be disposed of under well established Wisconsin law. Thus, I conclude that it would be more efficient and economical to the parties for me to dispose of the entire case at this time.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain related state law claims after resolving the federal claims when delay and judicial economy favor retention.

Dollard v. Allen · filed 2003-05-01(c)

The district court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims or to dismiss those claims. ... Moreover, this Court has studied the record in this case extensively and believes it would be a waste of judicial resources to require a state court to familiarize itself with the same materials. ... The Court will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the plaintiff abandons all federal claims, considering the work already done and fairness to the parties.

Francis v. POWER PLANT MAINTENANCE, INC. · filed 2003-05-22(c)(3)

In this case, Plaintiff decided to abandon his federal claims only after full discovery and briefing by all parties on the motions for summary judgment. Considering the time and effort expended on this case by the parties and this court and in fairness to the parties, this court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim of tortious interference with contract.

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

Javitch v. Capwill · filed 2003-09-24(c)(3)

The District Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if it has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In this instance, however, the Court is of the view there is good reason to depart from the general rule in this case. ... The interests of judicial economy, fairness, and comity favor this Court retaining those remaining claims Therefore, the Defendant’s request to dismiss the state law claims is not well taken.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental state law claims after dismissing federal claims when the state law claims present no novel issues of state law.

Warden v. Cross · filed 2004-03-19(c)

Here, the district court acted within its discretion in retaining the state law claims, despite dismissing the federal claims, because none of the state law claims presented novel issues of state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal of supplemental state-law claims after the federal claim is dismissed, but a court may retain them when deciding them promotes efficient administration of justice, especially if defeat of the federal claim necessarily defeats the state-law claims.

Burrell v. City of Mattoon · filed 2004-08-06(c)(3)

Although the district court could have dismissed the supplemental state law claims without prejudice because it dismissed the § 1983 claim upon which federal jurisdiction was predicated, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it went on to decide the remaining state law claims on their merits. This is appropriate to ensure the efficient administration of justice, especially in cases such as this where the defeat of the federal claim necessarily requires the defeat of the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after all federal claims are dismissed when judicial economy and fairness favor retaining the state-law claims.

Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan · filed 2004-10-22(c)(3)

Under § 1367(c)(3), it is indisputable that Judge Rakoff could have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after we directed him to dismiss plaintiffs’ RICO claims and after he dismissed plaintiffs’ other federal claims. ... Because considerations of fairness and efficiency weigh in favor of the District Court’s decision, and because the Court did not decide a novel question of Illinois law, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s decision to maintain jurisdiction over the state-law claims in this case.

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

Bobo v. Christus Health · filed 2005-04-26(c)

Furthermore, like the Southern District of New York in Kolari, this court shall exercise supplemental jurisdiction over and dismiss the plaintiffs remaining state law claims. ... A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims if it has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering preemption, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity, unresolved state-law questions, and state governmental interests.

In Re JetBlue Airways Corp. Privacy Litigation · filed 2005-07-29

These factors include: (1) whether state law claims implicate the doctrine of preemption; (2) considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, including the stage of proceedings when the federal claims are dismissed; (3) the existence of novel or unresolved questions of state law; and (4) whether the state law claims concern the state’s interest in the administration of its government or require the balancing of numerous important state government policies.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain a remaining state law claim when dismissal without prejudice would prejudice defendants who have prepared for trial.

Klatch v. Sugarloaf Township · filed 2006-02-23(c)(3)

The Court noted it had authority to dismiss the case under § 1367(c)(3) because federal jurisdiction was premised on the fact that the case was originally brought as a federal civil rights action, but only the state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress remained in the case. ... Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny Klatch’s motions for voluntary withdrawal and to amend the complaint in light of the prejudice that would have inured to the defendants had the motions been granted.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when it properly considers economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ramsey v. City of Philomath · filed 2006-05-19(c)

We conclude that the district court properly considered these values and did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Ramsey’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain a state-law claim after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors resolving it.

Walters v. Village of Colfax · filed 2006-12-11(c)(3)

In the interests of judicial economy, this Court sees no reason to relinquish jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when their interconnection and considerations of economy, convenience, and fairness support doing so.

Chisholm v. United of Omaha Life Insurance · filed 2007-09-28(c)(3)

However, the extent to which Ms. Chisholm's federal and state claims appear to be intertwined and considerations of economy, convenience and fairness to Ms. Chisholm, all counsel the Court to provide her with a response to her claims. In short, this is not the “usual case,” and therefore, the Court chooses in its discretion to ... exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Chisholm’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain state-law claims after dismissing federal claims when resolving them promotes judicial economy and avoids needless further litigation.

Sexstella-Wright v. Sandusky City School District Board of Education · filed 2007-12-27(c)(3)

As Sexstella-Wright rightly argues, it is ordinarily prudent for a district court that dismisses a plaintiff’s federal-law claims to decline to reach the plaintiff’s state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Moon, 465 F.3d at 728. We have, however, recognized a general exception to this guideline in cases where the exercise of a district court’s residual jurisdiction fosters the ends of “judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation” over the concern with federal courts “needlessly deciding state law issues.” Id. (quoting Aschinger v. Columbus Showcase Co., 934 F.2d 1402, 1412 (6th Cir. 1991)). ... Given this clear outcome, a dismissal without prejudice would merely have served to prolong litigation and consume unnecessary judicial resources. As such, the district court’s actions promoted judicial economy and were far from an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claim is dismissed, considering judicial economy, fairness to the parties, and the nature of the applicable state law.

In Re New Motor Vehicles Can. Export Anti. Lit. · filed 2008-03-28(c)(3)

The district court may, in the alternative, consider whether to exercise its discretion to continue exerting supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over the state damages claims. ... In weighing this option, the district court should consider “the totality of the attendant circumstances,” including considerations of judicial economy, fairness to the parties, and the nature of the applicable state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after the federal claims are dismissed, in its discretion.

Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2008-03-31(c)

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to retain closely related state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed, with the decision guided by judicial economy and fairness.

Daly v. Zobel · filed 2008-04-14(a)

Once the district court dismissed the federal claim, the court had the authority to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims that were closely related to the original claims. See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Given these findings, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Daly’s state law claims.

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, fairness, and comity favor retention.

C.T. v. Liberal School District · filed 2008-06-10(c)(3)

Certainly, then, it would be within the court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in their cases. ... In deciding how to exercise that discretion, the court considers and weighs the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... The court therefore rejects the school district defendants’ suggestion that the court should dismiss the state law claims, and the court hereby exercises its discretion to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

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

nSight, Inc. v. PeopleSoft, Inc. · filed 2008-10-07(c)

The district court was familiar with the facts and issues underlying nSight’s state law claims and it did not abuse its discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction to advance judicial economy and convenience to the parties.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental state law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy favors retention.

Thermodyn Corp. v. 3M Co. · filed 2008-12-17(c)(3)

Here, the interest of judicial economy motivates the Court to stray from the general rule. Although the federal law issues have been dismissed (Counts One and Two) and there is no diversity of parties here, the Court will not dismiss the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain supplemental state-law claims after dismissing the federal claim, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. · filed 2009-01-16(c)(3)

This court has discretion, however, to determine whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction when, as in this case, the original basis for federal jurisdiction has been dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Three of these four factors favor the court’s retention of jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain state law claims after the federal claims are eliminated, considering comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Ciampi v. Zuczek Ex Rel. Town of Westerly · filed 2009-02-12(c)(3)

When claims conferring original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 are eliminated, the district court has discretion to hear the remaining state law claims at issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) taking into account concerns of comity, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and the like. ... Thus, the Court will exercise its broad discretion and continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decide a supplemental claim on the merits after dismissing all federal claims when the supplemental claim is plainly meritless.

Golden Years Home v. Buckland · filed 2009-02-19(c)(3)

But the court thought this case fell within an exception to the general rule that applies when it is very clear that the supplemental claim is meritless. Boyce v. Fernandes, 77 F.3d 946, 951 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[I]f the supplemental claim is easily shown to have no possible merit, dismissing it on the merits is a time saver for everybody.”). Under the circumstances here, this was not procedurally im- proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain state law claims after the federal claims are resolved when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support doing so.

Fossyl v. Watson · filed 2009-03-18(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims once the federal claims were settled since this outcome provided convenience, fairness, and conserved scarce judicial resources.

When only state law claims remain, a district court lacking diversity jurisdiction should decide whether to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Hunter v. Amin · filed 2009-10-01(c)(3)

Because only state law claims now remain in this case, the district court should determine on remand whether the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. If they are not, the court should then determine whether it is appropriate to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Hunter's malpractice claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to retain related state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Shepherd v. LAW OFFICES OF COHEN & SLAMOWITZ, LLP · filed 2009-10-29(c)

Under the law in effect since 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 vests the court with supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are part of the same case or controversy as federal claims, and gives district courts discretion to exercise or decline to exercise that jurisdiction if all federal claims are dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). So even if the offer of judgment had mooted plaintiffs federal claim (and it most decidedly did not), this court would remain seized of jurisdiction over the state law claims and would have the discretion to keep them or to dismiss them so they could be brought next door.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor deciding it.

CHICAGO UNITED INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. City of Chicago · filed 2010-01-15(c)(3)

Because the Court has granted summary judgment as to all claims over which it has original jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over CUI’s state law contract claim. ... This is one of those unusual cases in which departure from the usual practice is appropriate. This case has been pending in federal court for more than four years, and this Court has devoted substantial judicial resources to learning the voluminous record in this case. Moreover, familiarity with the contracts was necessary to resolve the federal claims. Finally, no party has suggested that the Court should not decide CUI’s contract claim. In sum, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties all counsel in favor of resolving the merits of Count VI at this time.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims when the remaining state law claims can be resolved without further proceedings or difficult state law questions.

Kaur v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. · filed 2010-02-19(c)(3)

Here, Plaintiffs state law claims can “be determined without further trial proceedings and without entanglement with any difficult issues of state law, [so] considerations of judicial economy warrant [] retention and decision rather than relinquishment of the case to the state court.”

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

Sullivan v. Chappius · filed 2010-05-04(c)(3)

Applying those factors here, the Court in its discretion chooses to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs HRL claim, and to dismiss that claim. This course of action will best serve the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, and will not implicate any particular concerns over comity, since the application of state law to the facts alleged here is a relatively simple and straightforward matter.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after resolving the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Oregon Mutual Insurance Compan v. Seattle Collision Center Inc · filed 2010-11-16(a)

Contrary to SCC’s assertion, the district court had the power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, even though it had resolved the claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when the judicial resources already spent and the burdens of dismissal favor deciding them.

Perrywatson v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2011-01-10(c)(3)

Ms. Perrywatson’s claim that she was fired not for misbehavior but for filing workers’ compensation applications is a claim within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, and there is no reason not to decide it now and every reason to do so. Indeed to do otherwise would be an arguable abuse of discretion, for substantial judicial resources have already been committed and sending the case to another court would impose unnecessary burdens not only on the parties, but on the state courts, which would be required to rehear a claim that Ms. Perrywatson has had the unrestricted opportunity to present here. Additionally, it is absolutely clear how the claim should be decided. Hence, I decline to dismiss the claim under § 1367.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain or remand related state-law claims after the sole federal claim in a removed case is dismissed.

Henderson Ex Rel. Estate of Stoller v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 2011-01-05(c)

Instead, the district court possessed the discretion to either retain or remand those claims pursuant to § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits discretionary remand of a state-law claim when jurisdiction over that claim is only supplemental; original diversity jurisdiction makes exercising jurisdiction mandatory.

Cuevas v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP · filed 2011-07-27(c)

If the district court only has supplemental jurisdiction over the claim, Congress has granted authority to the district court to adjudicate the claim or remand the claim based on the court’s discretion. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C §§ 1367(c), 1441(c)). ... When the district court has original subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims, the exercise of that jurisdiction is mandatory.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after resolving the federal claim.

Schneider v. Darshan Shah · filed 2012-12-04(c)

“The decision to retain or decline jurisdiction over state-law claims is discretionary.” ... We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Schneider‟s NJLAD claim.

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

Taggart v. Norwest Mtg Inc · filed 2013-09-13(c)(3)

“A district court's decision whether to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction after dismissing every claim over which it had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In this case the state claims were largely duplicative of the federal claims. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating them.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after disposing of the federal claims when judicial economy and fairness favor retention.

Terbush v. Massachusetts ex rel. Hampden County Sheriff's Office · filed 2013-09-20(c)(3)

Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the medical malpractice claim against Dr. Lincoln.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all federal claims, in its discretion.

Speight v. Griggs · filed 2013-09-24(c)(3)

Despite the fact that all federal claims have now been dismissed, the Court exercises its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Zdebski v. Schmucker · filed 2013-09-24(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(3).

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

Miron v. Town of Stratford · filed 2013-09-30(c)(3)

Because the court has granted summary judgment for Defendants McNeil, Soto and Farmer on Plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, over which it has original jurisdiction, this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Miron’s remaining claims, all of arise under state law.

Section 1367 does not require a district court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to remand those claims to state court.

Boyd v. New Jersey Department of Corre · filed 2014-09-12

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. For that reason, it was not required to remand Plaintiffs’ claims to state court, as Plaintiffs argue.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain state law claims when the burden of restarting long-running federal litigation in state court favors keeping them.

Jones Creek Investors, LLC v. Columbia County · filed 2015-03-31(c)

The Court has considered Defendant’s request to dismiss without prejudice the remaining state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. That request is denied. Because this litigation has proceeded for so long in federal court, the burden of restarting litigation in state court is too great for the Court not to exercise its discretion in retaining the case.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to retain and resolve novel state-law issues after the federal claim is gone when the parties have vigorously litigated those issues and neither sought relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction.

Corre Opportunities Fund, LP v. Emmis Communications Corporati · filed 2015-07-02(c)(1), (3)

The state- law issues were vigorously litigated, and because neither side asked the district judge to relinquish supplemental ju- risdiction, 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(1), (3), we conclude that she did not abuse her discretion in resolving all aspects of the par- ties’ dispute.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain related state law claims when the federal claims may fail, with the advanced stage of litigation bearing on that discretion.

Marini v. Adamo · filed 2016-03-23(c)

By the time of trial, following the close of discovery approximately three years after the original complaint was filed, and even assuming the securities claims lacked merit, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the related common law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves district courts discretion to retain supplemental state law claims after federal claims are dismissed, and judicial economy can support that choice.

Ratcliff v. City of Red Lodge, Department of Police · filed 2017-08-07(c)(3)

The district court, noting that the case had been pending in federal court for over four years and invoking considerations of judicial economy, did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Ratcliff’s state law claims.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims and, in a removed case, dismiss those claims instead of remanding them after considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Rust v. Chino Prison Healthcare Providers · filed 2019-09-10(c)(3)

When declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a removed case, the district court has discretion to either dismiss the claims or remand them to state court, considering which will “promote the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” ... Considerations of “economy” and “convenience” do not weigh in favor of a remand, rather than a dismissal, of any state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to dismiss supplemental state law claims without prejudice rather than remand them after disposing of all federal claims.

Archie v. Nagle & Zaller, P.C. · filed 2019-10-16(c)(3)

There is no indication that the district court abused its discretion here: Nothing in the language of § 1367, nor in any case law interpreting that provision, imposes a requirement that the district court remand, as opposed to dismiss, pendant state law claims.

Under § 1367, supplemental state-law claims should be reinstated if Article III standing is established for the federal claim on remand.

Sanzone v. Mercy Health · filed 2020-03-27

If there is Article III standing, the state law claims should be reinstated pursuant to the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C § 1367.

Section 1367(c) does not permit remand of supplemental state law claims when none of its listed conditions is present.

Holtz v. Oneida Airport Hotel Corporation · filed 2020-04-30(c)

Since none of the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) are present, remand of the state law claims, as opposed to dismissal with prejudice, would be inappropriate.

A court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on the same facts as a federal claim when judicial economy and convenience favor keeping them together.

(PS) Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Trust 2007-1 · filed 2020-07-17(c)

Here, plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims are based on the same facts and allegations, and so the undersigned declines to sever the state claims in the interest of judicial economy and convenience.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permit a district court to remand state-law claims when they present a novel issue of state law and all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Theis v. Yuba County Sheriff's Department · filed 2020-09-11(c)(1), (c)(3)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) provides two particularly salient grounds for the court to exercise its discretion to remand here: 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1) provides remand is warranted where “the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,” and § 1367(c)(3) weighs in favor of remand where “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” Both circumstances are present here. Plaintiffs’ mandatory duty claim presents a novel question of statutory interpretation, in which California courts surely have the greatest interest. In addition, the court’s dismissal of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction leaves only the state claims, as noted above.

After dismissal of federal claims, § 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims based on case-specific considerations including fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.

McGinn v. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

However, the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction does not automatically give way once the federal claim is dismissed. Instead, the jurisdictional statute provides that once the federal claims giving rise to original jurisdiction are dismissed, the court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (emphasis added). The calculus for whether a federal court should continue to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims is not a rigid or formulaic one, but instead is a “‘pragmatic and case-specific evaluation of a variety of considerations,’ including ‘the interests of fairness, judicial economy, convenience, and comity.’” Desjardins v. Willard, 777 F.3d 43, 45 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Camelio v. Am. Fed’n, 137 F.3d 666, 672 (1st Cir. 1998)). Here, where the parties have briefed and argued at hearing Defendants’ motions to dismiss the remaining state law claims, concerns about comity do not outweigh the pragmatic benefits of adjudicating, in full, the motions that are presently before this court. Accordingly, the court will proceed to consider the parties’ arguments on the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain related state law claims; it does not require the court to sever and remand them.

Henry v. EXAMWORKS INC. · filed 2021-08-06(c)

Contrary to Henry’s contention, the district court was not required to sever and remand the state law claims. See id. § 1367(c). Instead, it had the discretion to retain jurisdiction, and it acted within its discretion to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain related state-law claims after dismissing federal claims against one defendant when judicial economy favors resolving them alongside claims against another defendant.

Champion v. Moda Operandi, Inc. · filed 2021-09-22(c)(3)

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if, among other things, “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 18 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... However, and not without some reluctance, I am going to retain jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims against Conde Nast. I do so solely and simply because the Right of Publicity claims against both defendants present common questions of law (though not of fact) and because I do not believe that judicial economy would be facilitated by severance.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to retain a related state-law claim after extensive federal litigation, even if the federal claims fail.

Reed v. Hammond · filed 2022-03-31(c)

Even if Reed’s § 1983 claims were not viable, the Court would not exercise its discretion to abandon this case at this late date. The Court therefore DECLINES to adopt the Recommendation that the Court exercise its 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over, and dismiss without prejudice, Reed’s state law medical malpractice claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when judicial economy and convenience favor doing so.

(PS) Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Trust 2007-1 · filed 2022-07-28(c)

Because plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims are based on the same facts and allegations, the court should decline to sever the state claims in the interest of judicial economy and convenience. See Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The decision to retain jurisdiction over state law claims is within the district court’s discretion, weighing factors such as economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”). Instead, the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) leaves retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims to the district court’s discretion, including when federal claims remain pending.

Waller 424245 v. Burgess · filed 2023-02-06(c)

Furthermore, in determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc., 994 F.2d 1178, 1182 (6th Cir. 1993). Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Because Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendants Parish, Burgess, and Clouse, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims against these Defendants.

Section 1367(c) makes dismissal of a supplemental state law claim discretionary; a court may retain that claim when federal claims remain pending.

Schiefel 495212 v. Barton · filed 2023-02-07(c)

Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, Plaintiff continues to have pending federal claims against Defendant Barton. Accordingly, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant Barton violated MDOC Policy Directive 03.03.130.

Section 1367(c) allows a court to retain related state-law claims despite potentially novel state-law issues when their close relationship to the other claims favors doing so.

Harrell v. California State University · filed 2024-08-16(c)

Assuming that claims (9) and (10) might present issues sufficiently novel to warrant remand in a different case, the Court in its discretion will exercise its jurisdiction over those claims given their close relationship to the other claims properly before the Court.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to remand pendent state law claims after dismissing the federal claims on the merits.

Ali v. Ramsdell · filed 2005-09-09

Thus, the district court’s rejection of Ali’s federal claims may only be upheld as a dismissal on the merits, which means that the order remanding her pendent claims to state court was an exercise of the court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and we have jurisdiction to review both aspects of the court’s final order.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to retain a supplemental state law claim when federal claims remain.

Delaney 671563 v. Allen · filed 2025-09-09(c)

Here, because at least one federal claim remains against each Defendant at this stage, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim.

Section 1367(c) gives a court discretion to retain related state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, considering factors such as judicial economy and convenience.

Burton v. N.E.S. Solutions LLC · filed 2025-09-18(c)

When all claims affording federal jurisdiction are dismissed from a complaint, it is within this Court’s discretion to decide whether to keep the remaining state-law claims or dismiss them. ... As such, in the interests of judicial economy and convenience, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Burton’s remaining state-law claim.

Dismissal of the removing defendant does not eliminate a court’s discretion under § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims related to surviving federal claims.

Cofield v. LinkedIn Corporation · filed 2025-09-26(c)

Regardless, X Corp.’s dismissal did not rid the case of all remaining claims asserted under federal law, nor did it displace this Court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any state-law claims related to the federal claims.