28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Patterson · filed 2026-01-09(c)(3)

Given the lengthy history of this case, including the pattern of multiplying litigation by the parties in both State and federal court, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy—namely finally resolving all claims between the parties in a single forum—predominate. Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over Mrs. Patterson’s State-law claims.

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

SYT Solutions, LLC v. Burger · filed 2021-01-12(c)(3)

The Court may retain jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, because the Court will not dismiss all federal claims in this matter and because the Court has broad discretion in determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the Court finds Defendants’ 12(b)(1) challenges unavailing.

Section 1367(d)’s tolling of state limitations periods does not eliminate a district court’s discretion to remand remaining state claims.

HARRISON v. THE CITY OF LANCASTER · filed 2021-06-16(d)

The tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) seemingly addressed this concern. However, the Supreme Court’s reasoning did not stop there. The Court went on to explain that even when the underlying statute of limitations has not expired, remand may still be warranted to “best promote the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Id. at 620.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to remand a claim within its supplemental jurisdiction when the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law.

Pas v. Travelers Insurance · filed 1993-10-14(c)(1)

Accordingly, the district court had supplemental, rather than original, jurisdiction over the state claim. Thus, the district court had discretion to remand the claim to state court.

Section 1367 does not extend the time to file a notice of appeal when an appellant files a notice of removal after dismissal.

Riley v. Daron Hall, Sheriff · filed 2011-03-02

We do not construe 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as allowing an appellant to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal by filing a notice of removal after a case has been dismissed.

Section 1367(a) allows supplemental jurisdiction over state claims only when they share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim under the court’s original jurisdiction; separate incidents with insufficient evidentiary overlap do not qualify.

Francis v. City of Schenectady · filed 2021-03-24(a)

Because there is insufficient evidentiary overlap between these claims, no common nucleus of operative facts exists such that the state claim forms part of the same case of controversy with Plaintiff’s federal claims relating to his arrest and prosecution.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim, including when they require distinct proof and substantially expand the action.

James v. Sun Glass Hut of California, Inc. · filed 1992-09-16(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s contract and fraud claims require elements of proof that are distinct and foreign to her ADEA claim. These claims would substantially expand the scope of this case. Moreover, all the state law claims involve damages not available under ADEA, again causing a substantial expansion of this action beyond that necessary and relevant to the federal claim. Therefore, I conclude that the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim and I decline to exercise my supplemental jurisdiction, if any.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when facts peculiar to state law claims substantially predominate over issues common to claims within its original jurisdiction.

Krause v. Forex Exchange Market, Inc. · filed 2005-02-10(c)(2)

Even assuming arguendo that the remaining state law claims against FXCM arise from the same case or controversy as the claims against the Alleged Primary Violators, the facts peculiar to FXCM — which include the details of its direct relationship with each plaintiff — substantially predominate over common issues. The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate in number, variety, and complexity over the federal claims.

Cobb v. Roshto · filed 2002-03-27(c)(2)

Under the federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if they “substantially predominate” over the federal claims. Bass v. Parkwood Hospital, 180 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1999). Taking into account our reversal of the summary judgment for Roshto, the dozen or more state law claims nevertheless continue to “substantially predominate” in number, variety, and complexity. The district court did not abuse his discretion.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not treat state-law claims as substantially predominant merely because they outnumber federal claims.

Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality · filed 1998-12-15(c)(2)

While the state law claims have the edge in numbers, this simple fact does not necessarily mean that the state law claims “substantially predominate.”

Under § 1367(c)(2), state claims do not substantially predominate merely because they outnumber federal claims, particularly where they share a factual basis and seek the same relief.

Federman v. Town of Lorraine · filed 2019-11-25(c)(2)

Importantly, whether a claim substantially “predominates” involves more than “a numerical count of the state and federal claims” asserted. In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., 613 F. Supp. 2d 437, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Borough of W. Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 789 (3d Cir. 1995)); see also Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726–27 (explaining that state-law claims can substantially predominate “in terms of proof, of the scope of the issues raised, or of the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought”). ... The underlying factual basis of Plaintiff’s federal claim—the Town’s treatment of his property, as opposed to his neighbors’ property—is a common issue running through almost all the state claims and further, all the claims seek the same relief. Thus, because many of Plaintiff’s claims are of the same type, declining supplemental jurisdiction “would undermine the efficiency rationale of supplemental jurisdiction” to adjudicate these claims in two separate forums. Shahriar, 659 F.3d at 246; see also Blackrock, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 257.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the monetary remedies available on state claims substantially predominate over the injunctive relief available on the federal claim.

Organization for the Advancement of Minorities With Disabilities Suing on Behalf of Its Members v. Brick Oven Restaurant · filed 2005-09-15(c)(2)

Given the disparity in available remedies, the Court finds that Singletary’s state claims substantially predominate over his lone federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law damages claims would substantially predominate over the remaining federal equitable claim.

Torres v. House of Representatives · filed 2012-04-16(c)(2)

Second, if the court were to assume jurisdiction over Plaintiffs damage claims they would substantially predominate over the one remaining equitable claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state claim for damages substantially predominates over a related federal claim for injunctive relief.

Langer v. Pacifica Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to weigh the apparent weakness of the federal claim when deciding whether a state claim substantially predominates.

Diven v. Amalgamated Transit Union International and Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union · filed 1994-11-01(c)(2)

Of course neither the district court nor we, at this stage and on this record, can definitively pronounce on the validity of appellants’ federal claim against the ATU, but the apparent weakness of the claim — even before discovery — is, under these circumstances, a factor to be weighed in determining whether the state claim “substantially predominates.”

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over a narrow remaining federal claim.

Cannon v. District of Columbia · filed 2014-01-06(c)(2)

Second, under § 1367(c)(2), D.C. law claims “substantially predominate[] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” The only federal claim which still remains in the case is the determination of FLSA damages for plaintiffs Ford-Haynes, Neill, and Weeks. This is a narrow, largely mathematical question, which has little if anything to do with the nucleus of facts common to plaintiffs’ nine D.C. law claims. It would therefore be imprudent for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these D.C. law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the claims supporting original jurisdiction, including when the federal claim is only an appendage.

Carbajal v. The Retreat at Bon Secour Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2019-07-11(c)(2)

Considering the plethora of state law claims asserted, including ones that seek to enjoin the same zoning ordinance as the federal claim, it appears that Carbajal Jr.’s sole federal claim for injunctive relief against Bauer (who is one of four defendants to this action), “is only an appendage” to the state claims that “constitute[] the real body of [this] case…”

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over a conclusory federal claim.

UNITED SERVICES, INC. v. CITY OF NEWARK · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if that claim “substantially predominates over the claim . . . over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). ... Here, Plaintiff’s five RFP claims, governed by state law, regulation, procedure, and remedies, are the crux of this case.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Langer v. Phils BBQ, Inc. · filed 2020-08-18(c)(2)

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

State law claims do not substantially predominate under § 1367(c)(2) when the same alleged conduct underlies related federal and state claims.

Shea v. UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST. OF MASSAPEQUA · filed 2010-02-05(c)(2)

However, the Court notes that the alleged actions of the defendants that underlie these state law tort claims are the same as the alleged actions that underlie the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that one category of claim predominates over the other.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not justify declining supplemental jurisdiction when the state and federal claims arise from the same conduct and require virtually the same trial evidence.

Picard v. Bay Area Regional Transit District · filed 1993-05-11(c)(2)

Plaintiffs’ state law claims do not substantially predominate over their federal claims. Plaintiffs’ substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection claims are based on the same conduct that forms the basis of their state law taking claim. While different legal theories are involved, each will require virtually the same eviden-tiary presentation at trial. ... The court does not feel that section 1367(c)(2) provides a basis for declining jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when they do not substantially predominate over the federal claims, including where the claims rely on common evidence.

Donaldson v. American Banco Corp., Inc. · filed 1996-11-20(c)(2)

Section 1367(e) states that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims. Here, state law claims do not substantially predominate the federal claims. Although the elements for plaintiffs Title VII claims and their outrageous conduct claims are distinct, plaintiffs rely on common evidence in support of their claims. Therefore, continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining outrageous conduct claims will not greatly complicate or expand this action.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims arising from the same facts as federal FLSA claims when the state claims do not substantially predominate.

Hamelin v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare · filed 2011-03-08(c)(2)

The type of state law claims here derive from the same set of facts relevant to the FLSA claims and thus the state law claims would not predominate over the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits retaining supplemental jurisdiction where related state law claims arise from the same exchange of proprietary information and do not substantially predominate over the federal copyright claim at the early stage of the case.

Recif Resources, LLC v. Juniper Capital Advisors, LP · filed 2019-10-24(c)(2)

At this early stage of this case, the Court cannot find factually that the state law claims predominate over the federal copyright counterclaim. Therefore, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction at this time.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not treat the number of defendants as material to whether state claims substantially predominate over federal claims.

Jackson v. Wright · filed 2022-01-18(c)(2)

The Court finds the quantity of defendants to be immaterial to the substantial predomination inquiry.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over a federal claim, including by adding issues of intent and monetary damages.

Uriarte-Limon v. 2 TM Tobacco Inc · filed 2024-12-02(c)(2)

Given the additional elements necessary for an Unruh Act claim, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over a companion ADA claim.

Dalfio v. P.I.D. University, Inc. · filed 2021-05-13(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the supplemental claims would substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Roscoe Moss Manufacturing Company v. Drill-Tech Incorporated · filed 2021-01-20(c)(2)

The Court agrees with Southwest. Maintaining Drill-Tech’s third-party causes of action would lead to those claims substantially predominating over Roscoe Moss’s underlying claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a third-party claim that substantially predominates over the claim within its original jurisdiction, including in a diversity case.

Fisk Electric Company v. Webcor Builders, Inc. · filed 2021-01-20(c)(2)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that, based on § 1367(c)(2), it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim, including because it offers relief unavailable under federal law.

Stub v. Credit Control Services Inc · filed 2021-01-15(c)(2)

It appears to the Court that her state law claim substantially predominates plaintiff’s withdrawn claim under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Brooke v. Grand Pacific Carlsbad LP · filed 2020-07-01(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim because it seeks damages beyond the ADA’s injunctive remedy.

Schutza v. Enniss Family Realty I LLC · filed 2020-06-18(c)(2)

Thus, the ADA claim appears to be a secondary claim used to justify filing in this Court. As such, the state claim substantially predominates over the ADA claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when an Unruh Act claim introduces issues of intent, damages, and emotional distress that substantially predominate over an ADA claim.

Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc. · filed 2020-05-15(c)(2)

As to Defendant’s first argument, the Court agrees with Defendant’s argument that state law issues predominate over ADA claim issues. If the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, (1) Defendant’s intent, (2) monetary damages, and (3) Plaintiff’s emotional distress would be extraneous issues that would have to be litigated and yet not relevant to the federal claim. As such, given these additional elements necessary for an Unruh Act claim, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when supplemental claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Baylay v. Etihad Airways P.J.S.C. · filed 2018-02-07(c)(2)

But even if Baylay is correct that the district court had orig- inal jurisdiction over those third-party contribution claims, district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdic- tion over a claim when the supplemental claim “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This is the case here. After Etihad’s dismissal, Baylay’s remaining claims included two state-law claims against Mann and a state-law claim of negligence against the Westin’s corporate entities. The corporate entities’ third-party contribution claims are en- tirely dependent on the resolution of the underlying state-law negligence claim against them. Thus, Baylay’s state-law claims substantially predominate. The district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them was not an abuse of discretion in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when foreign copyright claims substantially predominate over the remaining claims in their proof and legal issues.

Digitalb, SH.A v. Setplex, LLC · filed 2018-01-11(c)(2)

Because the foreign copyright infringement claims "constitute[ ] the real body of [this] case" to which the breach of contract and communications piracy claims are only appendages, exercising supplemental jurisdiction is not appropriate.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when they do not substantially predominate over claims within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Meier v. Premier Wine & Spirits, Inc. · filed 2005-05-27(c)(2)

Those claims do not substantially predominate over the others, and the court may therefore assert supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(2)-(4) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims after the RICO claims anchoring federal jurisdiction are gone.

Ifert v. Miller · filed 1992-04-27(c)(2)-(4)

Now that RICO is no longer the linchpin of jurisdiction, these issues would normally become triable solely in state court (where an action has already been filed). Thus, under subparts (2), (3) and (4) of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), I decline supplementary jurisdiction over the counterclaims brought by Miller, Fritz and their companies.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims that may raise some new issues when they do not predominate over federal claims and no exceptional circumstances call for declining jurisdiction.

Ball v. District of Columbia · filed 1992-05-22(c)

While the remaining claims in this case may raise some new issues of state law, they do not predominate over the federal questions plaintiffs have raised nor are there any exceptional circumstances which would dictate that the Court decline pendent jurisdiction. Furthermore, in keeping with the principles of United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, it would not be in the interest of justice to dismiss these claims. Therefore, the Court will take jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against codefendants when the claims are familiar, do not predominate, the original-jurisdiction claim remains, and no compelling reason warrants declining jurisdiction.

Roe v. Little Co. of Mary Hospital · filed 1992-12-18(c)

The first three of these considerations find no application here. The complaint states familiar, state-law claims; none of those claims predominates over the claims against the Red Cross; and because this Court rejects any request to dismiss the Red Cross. Under the fourth “catch-all” category, the only compelling reason for declining jurisdiction might be that this Court has no jurisdiction over the Respondents in Discovery who are named as such pursuant to Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 110, para. 2-402. ... This Gourt derived similar jurisdiction over the respondents when this case was removed. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no reason for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all of the codefendants in the case.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim in proof, issues, and remedy.

Intercontinental Dictionary Series v. De Gruyter · filed 1993-05-14(c)(2)

Assuming this is the case, the Court would find it appropriate to dismiss plaintiffs supplemental state law causes of action two through nine. These state claims appear to substantially predominate over the copyright cause of action over which the district court has original jurisdiction in terms of proof, the scope of the issues raised, and the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought.

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

Bodenner v. Graves · filed 1993-07-29(c)(2)

Plaintiffs have asserted one claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction and 28 claims over which the Court could exercise supplemental or pendent jurisdiction. .1 find that plaintiffs’ state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim asserted. For this reason, I dismiss counts 1-27, and count 29 without prejudice.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline pendent jurisdiction over third-party claims when their facts need not be developed to decide the main claim and they would predominate over it.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Summit Airlines, Inc. v. Ganz (In Re Summit Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1993-11-16(c)

In the instant factual setting, two of the most important of the Gibbs § 1367(c) considerations are not present. The operative facts relative to the third-party claims of the Astor Firm will clearly not have to be developed to decide the main claim. The pendent claims would, at this stage, predominate over the core bankruptcy claims set forth in the Plaintiffs main claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims would substantially predominate over the remaining federal claim.

US Ex Rel. Verdone v. CIR. COURT FOR TAYLOR CTY. · filed 1993-12-29(c)(2)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law damage claims against the remaining defendants. The adjudication of several state law claims against each of twenty-six defendants would "substantially predominate" over the one remaining federal claim in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims would substantially predominate over a remaining federal claim.

United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County · filed 1993-12-29(c)(2)

I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law damage claims against the remaining defendants. The adjudication of several state law claims against each of twenty-six defendants would “substantially predominate” over the one remaining federal claim in this case.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law issues substantially predominate over the federal issues.

Sexson v. Servaas · filed 1994-01-09(c)(2)

Considering what the Court has already explained about the Defendants’ affirmative defense, the only remaining issues to be resolved in this matter are governed exclusively by the laws of Indiana and thus “substantially predominate” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Town of Jaffrey v. Town of Fitzwilliam · filed 1994-02-07(c)(2)

This broad jurisdictional mandate is subject to the provisions of subsection (c) which permits the discretionary rejection of supplemental jurisdiction under certain specified circumstances. ... Under these circumstances, Jaffrey’s state law claims do substantially predominate over its federal claims. ... For the reasons stated, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff Jaffrey’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state law claims when they substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Crocker v. Borden, Inc. · filed 1994-05-06(c)(2)

Upon due consideration of the policies of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties, as outlined herein, the Court finds that the main demand ought to be severed from OCF’s third-party claims against Westinghouse for exposures to asbestos contained in marine turbines constructed for the Navy and that the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the main demands and the third-party claims unrelated to the Westinghouse marine turbines and remand them to state court. Clearly state claims substantially predominate over the lone federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when territorial law claims substantially predominate over the surviving federal claim in factual and legal scope.

Molloy v. Monsanto · filed 1994-06-09(c)(2)

We do find, however, that the territorial claims substantially predominate over the one surviving federal claim in this case. ... Together, these claims present factual and legal issues that far exceed the limited federal claim that has been found to withstand defendants' motions to dismiss. Case law in the Third Circuit holds that dismissal is warranted under such circumstances.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate over the remaining federal claim.

Baird v. Cutler · filed 1995-04-18(c)(2)

With respect to the remaining state law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants the Court discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims predominate over any remaining federal claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to consider dismissing state-law claims that substantially predominate over a claim within its original jurisdiction.

Asselin v. Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1995-07-25(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff show cause in writing on or before August 11, 1995, why all state law claims (for negligence or otherwise) should not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), on the ground that they substantially predominate over the ADA claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims with different elements would confuse the trial and predominate over the federal claim.

Debra Jones, Vaughn Jones, - Cross v. County of Los Angeles, Kelly Enos, - Cross · filed 1995-09-06(c)(2)

In these circumstances, the court could conclude that trying a number of claims with different elements would be confusing and predominate over the federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Palivos v. City of Chicago · filed 1995-08-17(c)(2)

We believe that the test of § 1367(c)(2) is met here. ... In light of these facts, it is clear that the supplemental claims (ie., Counts I and II) “substantially predominate[]” over the federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Accordingly, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and II, and remand those counts to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate over remaining federal claims.

J.B. v. Washington County · filed 1995-11-02(c)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1367 grants district courts discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims predominate over any remaining federal claim. Because the court has determined to grant defendant’s summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs’ claims under the federal constitution, any remaining state law claim in this ease clearly “predominate[s] over the claim ... over which [this court] has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Accordingly, this court dismisses without prejudice to further proceedings in state court any state law claim based on failure to train as well as any remaining state law claim.

Section 1367 allows a court to retain related state-law claims even when their remedies are broader than those available on the federal claim; the time the case has been pending may weigh in favor of exercising jurisdiction.

In Re Stat-Tech Securities Litigation · filed 1995-11-06(c)(2)

While state law may predominate in terms of the comprehensiveness of remedies sought on the remaining state law claims, all of the Trust’s claims stem from the same alleged misconduct of defendants. The fact that three years have passed since this case was filed also militates against refusing to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims now. I therefore accept jurisdiction over these claims and will consider them on their merits.

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

National Union Fire Insurance v. Coric · filed 1996-05-06(c)(2)

The Court will not do so, however, because it already has held, in essence, that the declaratory judgment claim by National Union does not “substantially predominate” over the company’s interpleader claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state-law claim would substantially predominate over the claim within its original jurisdiction.

Ruiz v. Stewart Associates, Inc. · filed 1996-06-17(c)(2)

Even if, arguendo, the class could be certified as supplemental to the federal jurisdiction (over the RICO claim, Count III) of the named Plaintiffs, this Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, since the putative class’ claim under Count II would substantially predominate over Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz’s claim under Count III (the claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction). See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction only if the state claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Karstens v. International Gamco, Inc. · filed 1996-09-17(c)(2)

Subsection (c)(2) permits the Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction only if the state claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Forsythe v. Microtouch Systems, Inc. · filed 1996-09-27(c)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), a district court may decline jurisdiction in a case where state causes of action “substantially predominate[ ] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” In its present posture, this is such a case, and jurisdiction will therefore be declined.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same agreements at issue in federal antitrust claims.

Tower Air, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 1996-10-15(c)(2)

Indeed, any finding as to the validity of Tower’s antitrust claims may directly implicate the legality of these agreements. For this reason, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim substantially predominates over the remaining federal claims.

Patel v. Penman · filed 1996-12-26(c)(2)

However, the district court appears to have decided that the state-law claim for inverse condemnation substantially predominated over the § 1983 claim against the City for due process and equal protection violations, a permissible ground for declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(2). This decision was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over a federal claim because they require proof of broader, distinct issues.

Krause v. Cherry Hill Fire District 13 · filed 1997-06-30(c)(2)

However, even if I were to find that plaintiffs’ state law causes of action and their FLSA claim arose out of a common nucleus of operative fact, I would still decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. The Supplemental Jurisdiction statute provides that a district court may, in its discretion, decline to assert jurisdiction over a state law claim when “the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 29 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(2). In this case, plaintiffs’ multifaceted state law claims clearly “predominate” over the relatively narrow FLSA minimum wage claim, in that the state law claims involve challenges to the authority and propriety of several decisions taken by the governing officers of District 13.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims accompanying a federal CERCLA claim after considering whether the state claims substantially predominate.

Raytheon Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co., Inc. · filed 1997-10-13(c)(2)

This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... In keeping with the latter view, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Raytheon’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when common law claims would substantially predominate over a federal claim.

Jefferson v. Milvets System Technology, Inc. · filed 1997-11-25(c)(2)

Further, the Court finds that adjudication of the parties’ five common law claims would substantially predominate over the plaintiffs single Federal claim under Title VII. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Accordingly, the Court shall deny the plaintiffs motion to amend and dismiss the defendant’s four counterclaims, without prejudice to the defendant’s right to re-file these claims in the Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would predominate over the remaining federal claim.

Aleman v. Melecio · filed 1998-01-22(c)(2)

The Court believes that accepting supplemental jurisdiction over these several, diverse claims brought under Commonwealth law would lead to these claims predominating over the federal claim remaining. For this reason, the Court refuses to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Dávila Alemán’s Commonwealth law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims when those claims will substantially predominate over the federal claim at trial.

Buckley v. Archdiocese of Rockville Centre · filed 1998-02-05(c)(2)

While the common law claims in this ease are sufficiently related to the Title IX claim against the District for the purposes of Section 1367(a), it cannot be seriously questioned that the former will predominate over the latter in any trial of this action. ... All remaining claims, save for the Title IX claim asserted against the District, and the two common law claims asserted against the District — intentional infliction of emotional harm and denial of educational opportunity — are dismissed under 28 U .S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over federal claims; common evidence can support retaining jurisdiction.

Brunetti v. Rubin · filed 1998-04-02(c)(2)

Section 1367(c) states that a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims. Here, the state law claim does not substantially predominate the federal claim. Though the elements for plaintiffs Title VII claim and her extreme and outrageous conduct claim are distinct, plaintiff relies on common evidence in support of both claims.

Section 1367 does not permit supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that is not part of the same case or controversy as the remaining federal claim, and permits a court to decline jurisdiction when the state claim could substantially predominate.

Layaou v. Xerox Corp. · filed 1998-03-27(a), (c)(2)

Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs HRL claim is not time-barred, I nonetheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. Although, as explained below, I am not dismissing plaintiffs claim concerning RIGP benefits, that claim and the HRL claim concern entirely different matters and do not “form part of the same case or controversy ...” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In addition, the RIGP claim relates to a relatively narrow issue concerning the proper interpretation of defendant’s pension plan, and if the two claims were tried together I believe that the HRL claim could “substantially predominate]]” over the RIGP claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) does not require declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims merely because the relief available under state law differs from the relief available under federal law.

McDonald v. Timex Corp. · filed 1998-03-31(c)(2)

The Court is unpersuaded, however, because it is irrelevant that the scope of relief under state law differs from that under federal law.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims predominantly involve factual questions distinct from the federal claim.

Gold v. Local 7 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 7 · filed 1998-11-03(c)(2)

In both eases, we see no abuse of discretion in declining jurisdiction on grounds of “predominance.”

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Seiler v. Charter Township of Northville · filed 1999-06-23(c)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), however, a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if the claims substantially predominate over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction. ... Returning to the present case, the Court finds that the state law claims clearly predominate over the remaining Count III facial challenge, and that principles of federalism and comity militate against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II, IV, and V, and finds that these claims should be remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court for further consideration.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the supplemental claim substantially predominates over the claim within its original jurisdiction.

At & T Corp. v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. · filed 1999-11-10(c)(2)

It would be difficult to find a case more clearly illustrating circumstances in which the claim brought under the supplemental jurisdiction predominates over the claim within the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Rugumbwa v. Betten Motor Sales · filed 2001-03-29(c)(2)

In this instance, the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction because plaintiffs six state law claims (based upon four state statutes) substantially predominate over their single federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Cabrera v. Courtesy Auto, Inc. · filed 2002-03-22(c)(2)

I likewise conclude that the state-law claims in this action substantially predominate over the TILA claim. ... Even though I have doubts that supplemental jurisdiction exists with respect to some or all of the state-law claims, their dismissal is permitted under section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction merely because state claims outnumber a surviving federal claim and involve different legal theories when the claims share evidence and seek the same remedy and no sufficient countervailing interest exists.

Mazurkiewicz v. Doylestown Hospital · filed 2002-07-19(c)(2)

However, while the legal theories differ between the federal and state law claims, much of the evidence likely to be introduced will be relevant to both sets of claims. Additionally, the remedy sought for the federal claims is the same as that sought for the state law claims; damages for the same set of injuries to plaintiff. ... Therefore, I find that there is no counterveiling interest sufficient to justify my declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when related counterclaims based on the same facts as defenses will not substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd. · filed 2003-02-25(c)(2)

Given that Fujitsu’s counterclaims are based on the same facts as are the defenses it will present in this action, the Court finds that Fujitsu’s counterclaims will not so substantially predominate as to justify the judicial inefficiency that would result if this Court were to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Gaines v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN · filed 2003-05-02(c)(2)

Plaintiffs state law claims may substantially expand the scope of this case beyond that necessary and relevant to Plaintiffs § 301 claim, and thus the state law claims substantially predominate. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not support declining supplemental jurisdiction when the state-law claims do not predominate over the federal claims.

Jones v. Belhaven College · filed 2004-08-30(c)(2)

The state law claims in the instant case simply do not predominate over the plaintiffs’ federal causes of action under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not call for declining supplemental jurisdiction over state discrimination claims that share the federal claims’ factual basis and require substantially similar analysis.

Murphy v. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP · filed 2004-09-27(c)(2)

The Court agrees with the plaintiffs and thus denies the defendants’ motion as to the DCHRA claims. ... Furthermore, PwC does not dispute that the plaintiffs’ federal and DCHRA claims share a common factual basis and would thus not involve vastly different analyses by this Court.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over federal claims.

Frankel v. DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2005-08-26(c)(2)

Plaintiffs’ state law contract claims would substantially expand the scope of this case beyond that necessary and relevant to the federal claims under ERISA. The Court finds that the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state wage claims that do not appear to predominate over parallel FLSA claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor hearing them together.

Brickey v. Dolencorp, Inc. · filed 2007-08-29(c)(1)

As such, the state claims do not, at present, appear to threaten predomination over the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, and the interests of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties favor hearing the plaintiffs’ FLSA and state law claims together.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim and considerations of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor declining jurisdiction.

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (" Mtbe") Products Liability Litigation · filed 2009-03-09(c)(2)

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the state law claims in this case substantially predominate over the TSCA claims. ... In short, these actions attempt to wield a federal tail to wag a state dog. ... Comity thus counsels in favor of allowing these state claims to proceed in state court.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims vastly outnumber a federal claim and require proof of many more elements.

Naegele v. Tonius · filed 2009-03-23(c)(2)

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which vastly outnumber the federal claim and require proof of many more elements.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims would predominate over the remaining federal claims because they require distinct proof and would substantially expand the lawsuit.

Block-Victor v. CITG Promotions, L.L.C. · filed 2009-10-13(c)(2)

The court also declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over DaSilva’s and Nikkila’s remaining state law ELCRA claims under § 1367(c)(2) because these state law claims would predominate over Block-Victor’s remaining claims. DaSilva’s and Nikkila’s state law ELCRA claims would require proofs distinct from Block-Victor’s claims, causing a substantial expansion of the lawsuit beyond that necessary and relevant to Block-Victor’s claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that essentially replicate federal claims, even if the state-law claims involve more claimants and potential damages.

Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. · filed 2010-09-27(c)(2)

We follow Lindsay in concluding that it was within the district court’s discretion to exercise supplemental juris- diction over the § 17200 claim in this case. The § 17200 claim does not pose novel questions of state law akin to those pres- ent in De Asencio. Indeed, the FLSA and § 17200 claims are closely related. Although the number of claimants and amount of potential damages in the § 17200 claim may have been higher, as Lindsay states, “[p]redomination under section 1367(c)(2) relates to the type of claim and here the state law claims essentially replicate the FLSA claims — they plainly do not predominate.” Id. at 425 (emphasis added).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Crews & Associates, Inc. v. Nuveen High Yield Municipal Bond Fund · filed 2011-03-29(c)(2)

The district court may, however, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if they substantially predominate over federal claims or if, in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Here, the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) measures whether state claims substantially predominate by the type of claim, not by the relative number of state and federal claimants.

Whitehorn v. Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc. · filed 2011-07-20(c)(2)

Although it is true that more class members will likely choose to remain in a class action under the NYLL than will opt-in to the FLSA collective action, “predominance” for the purposes of supplemental jurisdiction “refers to the type of claim, not the number of claimants.”

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

United States ex rel. Bartz v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. · filed 2012-03-02(c)(2)

Because the FCA retaliation claim is the only remaining federal claim, the court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the state false claims act counts — Counts VI through XXX.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate because their issues of liability and relief extend beyond the federal claim.

May v. Apache Corp. · filed 2012-05-01(c)(2)

These issues are clearly outside the scope of any CERCLA claim and state law predominates. While the parties are the same and the realty is the same, the bases for liability and the available relief is very different.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a settlement agreement dispute substantially predominates over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Dailey v. Park · filed 2012-05-25(c)(2)

Without reaching that question, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the parties’ settlement agreement dispute “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Morgan v. Christensen · filed 2014-09-08(c)(2)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim if it “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). ... Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morgan’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Maxient, LLC v. Symplicity Corp. · filed 2014-10-23(c)(2)

The Court also concludes that the remaining non-preempted claims substantially predominate over the preempted claims and the Court therefore declines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the non-preempted claims set forth in Count I (trade secrets), Count II, and Count IV; and Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is GRANTED to that extent.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the relief sought on state-law claims substantially predominates over the relief sought on claims within its original jurisdiction.

Oszust v. Town of St. John · filed 2016-08-30(c)(2)

Further, the relief the Plaintiffs seek in their state claims, which spans pages of requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, substantially predominates over the damages sought in Oszust’s Title VII and First Amendment retaliation claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims that substantially predominate over the surviving federal claims, including when they require proof and factual analysis unrelated to those federal claims.

Raymond v. City of N.Y. · filed 2018-06-27(c)(2)

As to all other such claims asserted under both federal and state law, the state law claims are the only ones that remain, and thus substantially predominate. Consideration of the remaining state and local law claims would involve proof and disputes and analysis of facts that are not implicated by the few remaining federal employment law claims. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of Plaintiffs' NYSHRL and NYCHRL Claims, including Plaintiffs' related vicarious liability claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Badhwa v. Veritec, Inc. · filed 2018-12-13(c)(2)

The removing parties properly removed their own declaratory judgment counterclaims to federal court, but this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the other claims, which predominate over the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims would substantially predominate over the federal claims, including by complicating proof, legal theories, and jury instructions.

Zawada v. Hogan · filed 2019-08-07(c)(2)

Because the state claims presented in this action would predominate over the § 1983 federal claims over which the court has original jurisdiction, the court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss the state claims contained in Counts I, II, and III without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims and their related issues substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Spikes v. All Pro Auto Repair, Inc. · filed 2019-08-26(c)(2)

Thus, the state claims and the issues related thereto substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which appears to be a secondary claim included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather than a necessary (let alone predominant) claim in this lawsuit.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law counterclaims would substantially predominate over a federal claim by requiring extensive additional proof.

Lawrence v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C. · filed 2019-09-03(c)(2)

In this case, the Defendants’ state law counterclaims would substantially predominate over the Plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims. ... Accordingly, even if § 1367(a) were satisfied, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Defendants’ state law counterclaims pursuant to § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Theroux Jr. v. Oceanside Motel-9, LP · filed 2019-09-20(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim seeking damages substantially predominates over a related federal ADA claim.

Rodriguez v. Lincoln Park Paseo 1, LLC · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Theroux Jr. v. Lemon Grove Ultra Mart, Inc. · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when an Unruh Act claim seeking statutory damages substantially predominates over a related ADA claim.

Langer v. Deddeh · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over proposed state-law claims that substantially predominate over a pending federal claim.

Moreno v. Moore · filed 2019-11-04(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s PAC includes numerous state-law claims, which predominate over the § 1983 excessive force claim that has been pending in this Court for almost a year. The Court has set deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions, and Plaintiff offers no basis upon which the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his numerous proposed state-law claims. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is due to be denied.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state claims cover numerous alleged schemes and substantially predominate over a remaining federal claim covering only one scheme.

Temurian v. Piccolo · filed 2019-11-13(c)(2)

The Court finds that the seventeen claims in the Amended Complaint brought under state law, which include breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, civil theft, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and usurpation of partnership opportunities and misuse of partnership assets, substantially predominate over the sole remaining Lanham Act count. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the remaining federal claim.

Patel v. City of Long Beach · filed 2019-11-27(c)(2)

We affirm on the basis that, as of the time of the district court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’ state law claims substantially predominated over their only non- dismissed federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim whose differing proof and scope, including individualized damages calculations, cause it to substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Swede v. Wood Mode · filed 2019-12-12(c)(2)

As a result of the differing proof and scope of the inquiries, I find that the WPCL inquiry would predominate over the WARN Act’s. It is better suited to be tried in the state courts of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs will not be unduly prejudiced because their claims may be heard there and the statute of limitations has not yet expired.9 For these reasons, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ WPCL claim pursuant to § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when its damages remedy and related issues substantially predominate over an ADA claim providing only injunctive relief.

Schutza v. Kingsmen, LLC · filed 2020-03-24(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when the amount and nature of relief sought on state law claims cause them to substantially predominate over a single ADA claim.

Strojnik v. The Victus Group, Inc. · filed 2020-03-27(c)(2)

Given the amount and nature of the total relief requested, the Court concludes that Strojnik’s three California state law claims substantially predominate over the single ADA claim. ... It is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Strojnik’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state disability and negligence claims raise issues irrelevant to an ADA claim and their monetary damages substantially predominate over federal injunctive relief.

Spikes v. Essel Commercial, L.P. · filed 2020-04-08(c)(2)

By alleging intentional and negligent conduct, Plaintiff raises issues that are irrelevant to his ADA claim. ... The monetary damages Plaintiff seeks under the Unruh Act, DPA, and California common law substantially predominate over his request for injunctive relief under the ADA.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Curtis v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Quest Trust 2005-X1, Asset Backed Certificates Series 200 · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

Having reviewed the state-law claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint, this Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claims predominate. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Hindelang v. CITY OF GROSSE POINTE · filed 2020-09-09(c)(2)

Thus, the Hindelangs’ numerous state-law claims “substantially predominate” over their two federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that substantially predominates over a federal claim because it offers potentially greater damages and rests on a separate state-law theory.

Rutherford v. Leal · filed 2020-09-16(c)(2)

In light of the potential for Plaintiff to seek far greater state law damages and his inclusion of a state-law specific legal theory, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over his ADA claim and declines to exercise jurisdiction on that basis.

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

BHATT v. HOFFMAN · filed 2020-09-17(c)(2)

Moreover, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state- law claims under § 1367. The only remaining federal claim in Plaintiff's Complaint is her claim under the Cable Communications Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551, against CSC. With nearly all of Plaintiff's federal claims dismissed, her state-law claims “substantially predominate[]” over the action.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim.

Brooke v. SDMV Hotel Partners LP · filed 2020-09-24(c)(2)

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

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims because they offer broader remedies.

Langer v. Honey Baked Ham, Inc. · filed 2020-11-06(c)(2)

First, in light of the remedies provided under the federal and state laws, the state claims predominate.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when resolving a state-law claim would substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Reynolds v. Szczesniak · filed 2020-11-16(c)(2)

If the Court were to allow the state-law wrongful death claim against Martin to go forward, it would likely substantially predominate over the federal-law claims. In order to resolve the claim against Martin, the Court would have to adjudicate the question of whether Martin killed Reynolds in the first instance. This would be a fact-intensive inquiry that would most likely go to a jury and would best be left to a state court. Additionally, adjudicating the claim against Martin as part of this case would likely raise problems, such as the substantial differences in the evidence and legal theories relevant to the federal and state claims, as well as the potential for complicated jury instructions and jury confusion. In light of these considerations, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Reynolds’ state-law claim for wrongful death against Martin (Count V) and so Count V is REMANDED to state court.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wallace v. Greystone at the Highlands Association · filed 2020-11-16(c)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), courts “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if . . . the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” ... Except for Count II, all of Plaintiffs’ state claims substantially predominate over their FHAA action. ... The Court will therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III-VI and X-XIII.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims predominate, a determination based on the claims’ type or nature rather than their number.

Gleske v. Jayco, Inc. · filed 2020-12-04(c)(2)

The Gleskes offer the weight of numbers—six to one—but predominance typically concerns the type or nature of claims, not their mere numbers.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the remaining federal claim.

(PC) Flow-Sunkett v. Diaz · filed 2021-03-18(c)(2)

Thus, plaintiffs’ state law family visiting claims substantially predominate over the sole remaining federal due process claim, and do not replicate the discrete federal due process claim that remains viable here. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the district court decline to exercise jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Rogan v. Tomlinson · filed 2021-03-23(c)(2)

Finally, the Court properly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because they predominate over the federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law issues substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

GLEN RIDDLE STATION, L.P. v. MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-03-25(c)(2)

In sum, because non-federal issues predominate, GRS’s state law “mandamus” claim is not appropriate for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims predominate over federal claims in number and scope.

Brikho v. Detroit, City of · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

Here, Plaintiffs’ state law claims predominate over the federal claims both as to number and as to the “scope of the issues raised.” Id. Therefore, this court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over the claim within its original jurisdiction.

Grant v. UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals · filed 2021-04-16(c)(2)

Here, Plaintiffs’ state law claims substantially predominate.

Section 1367(c)(2) does not make related Unruh Act claims substantially predominate over an ADA claim solely because the state law permits monetary damages while the ADA permits only injunctive relief.

Hendrik Block v. 7-Eleven, Inc · filed 2021-06-28(c)(2)

Defendant further argues that the state law claims substantially predominate because the Unruh Act permits monetary damages in addition to injunctive relief, while the ADA only allows injunctive relief. Mot. 6. Maybe so. But this reason, standing alone, does not weigh heavy enough for the Court to conclude that the state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim.

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

Whitener v. The Rutherford County Detention Center · filed 2021-09-21(c)(2)

Assuming arguendo that the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a medical negligence claim under North Carolina law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it at this time. The medical negligence claim against the Jane Doe nurse practitioner and Jane Doe physician is not adequately related to the § 1983 claims that have passed initial review against the John Doe sergeant and two John Doe correctional officers. Further, such claim would require extensive expert testimony of an entirely different nature than that needed to adjudicate constitutional issues. It is likely, in this case, that the medical malpractice claim would substantially predominate over the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over a federal claim because they require distinct discovery, proof, and legal analysis.

Woods v. First Transit, Inc. · filed 2021-10-07(c)(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ California and New York state-law claims (i.e., Counts 4 through 9) substantially predominate over Plaintiffs’ single FLSA claim for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Ewing v. Golv, Inc. · filed 2021-12-30(c)(2)

Accordingly, assuming supplemental jurisdiction exists in the first instance, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims two through four pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over a remaining federal claim because they present distinct issues and elements of proof.

McWaters v. Talley · filed 2022-02-08(c)(2)

Here, the remainder of the McWaters’ state law claims, which sound in defamation, are distinct from the sole remaining federal claim regarding the allegedly unconstitutional search of Chris McWaters’s cell phone. These particular state law claims involve unique elements that “substantially predominate” over the sole remaining federal claim. Neither judicial economy nor fairness to other litigants support retaining jurisdiction of the McWaters’ remaining state law claims.

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

Evans v. City of Ann Arbor · filed 2022-02-25(c)(2)

Even if Count V against Defendant PMSI survives, the court finds that the ten state law claims “substantially predominate[] over the . . . claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,” as this constitutional claim is quite distinct from the remaining allegations.

State-law claims can predominate under § 1367(c) when they are central to the case and will require significantly more discovery and motion practice than the federal claim.

Wang v. BB Wells Investment Inc. · filed 2022-04-19(c)(2)

Finally, the state law claims, which include fraud, conspiracy, and wrongful foreclosure, are at the center of the FAC, and will require significantly more discovery and resulting motions than the TILA claim. For this reason, these claims predominate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Acriv. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (the analysis under § 1367(c) is informed by the values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” (citation omitted)).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims would predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Viking Cloud, Inc. v. Leedy · filed 2022-06-29(c)(2)

This Court concludes that Plaintiff’s state-law claims would predominate over the one federal claim asserted in this action.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims that substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

O'Toole v. The City of New York · filed 2022-07-07(c)(2)

As to those Plaintiffs, there are no remaining federal claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction and, to the extent the Court is authorized to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(a), it declines to do so given that those Plaintiffs’ state and local law claims substantially predominate over the claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially predominate over a federal claim, including when they involve distinct issues and exercising jurisdiction would undermine economy, fairness, and comity.

Barone v. Inspire Summits LLC · filed 2022-08-04(c)(2)

Those claims involve a subset of Plaintiffs and issues related to those Plaintiffs’ hiring that are distinct from the issues re- quired to litigate the FLSA minimum wage claim related to Plaintiffs’ pay. Plaintiffs may artfully plead a minimum wage claim, but they cannot con- vert the FLSA into a Trojan Horse for peripheral state law claims to gain entrance to federal courts. Therefore, the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the alleged common law claims under New York law because doing so would impede rather than promote the values of economy, fairness, and comity.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim substantially predominates over the federal claims.

Longino v. Martinez · filed 2022-08-11(c)(2)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that his state-law claim “substantially predominates” over his federal claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for that reason.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

BELFI v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK · filed 2022-09-07(c)(2)

Because this form of relief is based on his state law claims, Mr. Belfi’s state law claims substantially predominate over any federal statutory claims over which this Court could have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims would substantially predominate over the remaining federal claim in proof and scope of issues.

Miles 237011 v. Rink · filed 2022-09-27(c)(2)

The state law claims substantially predominate over the one remaining federal claim in this case.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state claims substantially expand the litigation beyond the federal claims and predominate.

Cutright v. FCA US, LLC · filed 2022-12-08(c)(2)

These well-elaborated judicial economy concerns with concomitantly having federal and state claims, and the substantial predominance of the latter, are similarly presented in this case. As in Gaines, the state discrimination claims against Union Defendants substantially expand the scope of the occurrences and transactions that are the subject matter of the federal claims in this action.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state counterclaim that substantially predominates over the federal claim in evidence and remedies.

Francis Trucking v. Francis · filed 2023-02-02(c)(2)

With the request to clarify title of large, valuable physical property, Shawn Francis greatly expands not only the evidence before the court, but also the remedies at issue. Due to the quiet title claim’s substantial predominance, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this counterclaim.

Section 1367(c)(2) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over federal claims.

LAMIA v. THE BOROUGH OF PLUM · filed 2023-03-13(c)(2)

A fair reading of the Complaint leads to the conclusion that the state law claims are neither ancillary nor incidental to the federal claims, and the state law claims do not substantially predominate the federal claims such that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2) should apply at this junction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims, including when they would expand the issues and risk jury confusion.

STANALAJCZO v. ESBRI · filed 2023-03-28(c)(2)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the state claims “substantially predominate[] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), “whether in terms of proof, of the scope of the issues raised, or of the comprehensiveness of the remedy sought.” ... As such, the court finds that the interests against needlessly deciding state law issues in this instance outweighs the desire to avoid delay, increased costs, and multiplicity of litigation riddled with potential for jury confusion.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state-law claims that substantially predominate after the defendants asserting a basis for removal are dismissed.

Gemaehlich v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation · filed 2023-04-05(c)(2)

The Court exercises its discretion to remand this case back to Alameda Superior Court. The Gemaehlichs bring only state-law tort claims, which clearly “substantially predominate” in this action. See Compl.; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law contract claim when its issues would substantially predominate over the federal claim.

Breton v. Bernadeau · filed 2023-04-11(c)(2)

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this claim under section 1367(c)(2) because the state law issues concerning the settlement agreement would substantially predominate over the federal Eighth Amendment claim, which is limited to Defendant Bernadeau’s alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s need for a memory foam pillow.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when the number of state-law plaintiffs and the distinct proof their claims require make those claims substantially predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Goodson v. Bow Plumbing Group, Inc. · filed 2023-04-18(c)(2)

Thus, on this record, the Court concludes that the disparate numbers of plaintiffs would “cause the federal tail represented by a comparatively small number of plaintiffs to wag what is in substance a state dog,” see De Asencio, 342 F.3d at 311, and also that the differences in proof militate in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over the non-Goodson Plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that would predominate over claims within its original jurisdiction.

Wakefield v. Franklin County Jail · filed 2023-05-18(c)(2)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the sixteen state law claims in Count 2 pursuant to § 1367(c)(2) because those claims would predominate over Count 1.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a related state law claim that would substantially predominate over the federal claims.

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior · filed 2023-10-13(c)(2)

Even if the County satisfied Rule 14(a)(1) and the alleged state law claim were related to the federal claims, the Court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, because the state law claim would substantially predominate over the existing federal claims.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that substantially predominate when only damages remain on the federal claim but substantive state law issues remain.

Nelson v. Atlantic Global Financing Inc. · filed 2024-03-26(c)(2)

The Court finds that it should decline to exercise jurisdiction over Nelson’s state law claims. AGFI’s liability has been determined by the entry of default judgment against it, leaving only the issue of damages. The remaining substantive questions in the case center on Nelson’s state law claims against AGFI. ... This logic resonates here, where the only remaining issue in Nelson’s federal claim is damages. Accordingly, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Nelson’s state law claims asserted against AGFI.

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

Kiser v. Moyal · filed 2024-09-18(c)(2)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ state-law claims substantially predominate over the CFAA claim. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims in Counts One through Eleven of the operative complaint.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims in the scope of proof and issues.

Waters v. Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC · filed 2024-10-25(c)(2)

Consequently, the state-law claims involve a wider scope of proofs and issues, substantially predominating over the single federal claim against Columbia.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Yatooma v. Yatooma · filed 2024-11-13(c)(2)

Were this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims, it would substantially expand the scope of the litigation. ... Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Counts I-XII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are REMANDED to the Circuit Court for Oakland County, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Dalavai v. University of California San Diego Health · filed 2025-01-29(c)(2)

The Court thus declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pleaded against the Regents since they “substantially predominate[] over the . . . claims over which the” Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state law claims substantially predominate over federal claims.

Hattons Ford Rd LLC v. Anderson County · filed 2025-04-25(c)(2)

In light of these facts, Plaintiffs’ allegation that their state law claims predominate in this matter does not warrant a remand of any or all of Plaintiffs’ claims.