28 U.S.C. § 1367

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

Adams v. Davis County · filed 2014-07-07(c)(1)

Because the remaining claims in this case involves complex issues of state law, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) provides no basis for supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against defendants protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity or defendants over whom personal jurisdiction is lacking.

Grezak v. Ropes & Gray LLP · filed 2020-04-16(a)

Because the Eleventh Amendment barred all of Gre- zak’s claims against MHLS, there was no basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims against that defendant. ... And since personal jurisdiction was lacking over the other defendants, there was no basis for exercising supplemental ju- risdiction over state-law claims against them, either.

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

Stansbury v. McCarty Corporation · filed 2022-10-04(c)(1)

The first factor weighs in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. The Court is persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that “complex issues of historical state tort liability and virile share law” require remand.

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims that involve complex issues of state law.

Smith v. Prator · filed 2022-10-05(c)(1)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where the state-law claim “raises a novel or complex issue of State law” or “substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Because this Court finds that the state-law claims against Dr. Nelson sound in medical malpractice, and these claims therefore involve complex issues of state law, judicial economy favors the dismissal of these claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim despite a local charter provision assigning exclusive jurisdiction to state court.

The Mad Room LLC v. The City of Miami · filed 2023-12-12(a)

And, because we have supplemental jurisdiction over this claim, we cannot interpret the City Charter in a way that would prohibit us from exercising that jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits federal courts to hear related state-law claims despite state statutes designating state courts as the forum.

Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. · filed 2024-11-12(a)

Because the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of these and other States (discussed below) on the basis of state statutes specifying state courts as the forum for certain state-law claims runs afoul of 28 U.S.C. § 1367, I deny it.

Section 1367(c) does not justify a blanket refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims merely because instructing the jury on both state and federal claims may be difficult or misleading.

Velazquez v. City of Long Beach · filed 2015-07-15(c)

Rather, the district court’s sole explanation for the dismissal was that instructing the jury on the § 1983 claims while simultaneously instructing it on the state claims for false arrest and assault and battery would be difficult or misleading. ... We therefore hold that the district court abused its discretion in blanketly refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and so reverse its dismissal of Velazquez’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Whitaker v. Intermix Holdco, Inc. · filed 2021-02-19(c)

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

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

Whitaker v. El Ouaer · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc. · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Whitaker v. The Swatch Group US Inc. · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists over a related claim.

Rutherford v. Cal-Branson Investment, Inc. · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists.

Rutherford v. Callens FV LLC · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Pier v. Saucedo · filed 2021-02-19(c)

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

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

Barekat v. Nohl Plaza, LLC · filed 2021-02-19(c)

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

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

Aguirre v. Lohiya · filed 2021-02-19(c)

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

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

Amber Machowski v. HY5 LLC · filed 2021-02-19(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when federal court is the only forum where all claims can be heard together.

55 Motor Avenue Co. v. Liberty Industrial Finishing Corp. · filed 1994-12-29(c)

Considering that the tort claims against the government can only be heard in federal court, federal court is the only place where all of plaintiffs’ claims may be heard together. ... Thus, because the government is a defendant in this action, this Court will exercise its jurisdiction to hear the state claims against the other defendants.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when they do not predominate or raise a novel issue of state law and joint adjudication serves judicial economy and fairness.

Agnes VERA-LOZANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1995-03-22(c)

Here there is clearly no such abuse: the state claims do not predominate; Vera points to no novel issue of state law; and joint adjudication serves the interest of judicial economy and fairness. We therefore find that the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction.

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

Curcio v. Chinn Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1995-06-05

Because Chinn is a proper defendant as an “employer” under Title VII, Chinn’s argument that the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts III and IV, the state law claims, is therefore denied.

Section 1367(c)(1)–(2) permits a district court to retain supplemental state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retaining them despite potentially novel or complex state-law issues.

Williams v. 5300 Columbia Pike Corp. · filed 1995-07-13(c)(1)-(2)

In addition to the novelty and complexity of the issues, factors relevant to the exercise of this discretion are judicial economy, convenience of and fairness to litigants, and comity between the state and federal courts. ... These factors, applied here, point persuasively to the conclusion that jurisdiction over the state-law claims should be retained.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction for the listed reasons but does not require it to do so.

Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia · filed 1995-08-14(c)

The statute conferring supplemental jurisdiction is permissive in that it provides that a district court “may” decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim for the enumerated reasons. The Court does not find any reason under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(e)(l)~(4) (1993) to relinquish jurisdiction over the § 24-442 claims.

Section 1367(c) leaves the decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to the court’s discretion.

Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America · filed 1995-08-21(c)

Ultimately Section 1367(c) treats the decision on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as discretionary.

Section 1367(c) leaves dismissal of supplemental claims to the district court’s discretion even when a listed ground for declining jurisdiction applies.

Vernon v. Medical Management Associates of Margate, Inc. · filed 1996-01-16(c)

Under the statute, even if the claims at issue meet the criteria specified in subsection (c), these claims will not be dismissed unless the Court, in its discretion, chooses to dismiss those causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(2) permits, but does not require, a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over federal claims.

Marisol A. by Next Friend Forbes v. Giuliani · filed 1996-06-18(c)(2)

Because the bulk, if not all, of plaintiffs’ federal claims have survived defendants’ motions to dismiss, plaintiffs’ state law claims cannot be said to predominate for purposes of § 1367(e)(2). Even if this were not so, however, § 1367(c) merely sets forth circumstances under which a district court may, but is not required to, decline to exercise jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain related state law claims when avoiding duplicate litigation outweighs the risk of jury confusion.

Williams v. Jabe · filed 1996-11-25(c)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if there are compelling reasons for doing so. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... I find that the potential for jury confusion is out-weighed by the need to avoid the unnecessary duphcation of efforts by both parties in the state courts. ... I therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims as the most just and expeditious resolution of this case.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining claim after dismissal of the federal claim, or to decline jurisdiction in its discretion under subsection (c).

D. Sorenson & Assoc. v. PayFlex Systems, USA · filed 1996-12-23(c)

If MPEHA is determined to have been an ERISA entity at relevant times, we note that the remaining claim would appear to fall within the trial court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, even though MPEHA has now been dismissed. Thus, under such circumstances, the court is free to use its discretion to exercise jurisdiction or dismiss the case as permitted by section 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain and adjudicate supplemental state law claims after dismissal of a punitive damages claim that supported the jurisdictional amount.

Jones v. Dow Chemical · filed 1997-02-04

Once the punitive damages claim was dismissed, the district court enjoyed supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The district court’s decision to retain and adjudicate these claims was fully within his discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to proceed with supplemental common law claims while federal claims are on interlocutory appeal when the grounds for declining jurisdiction do not warrant doing so.

Holland v. O'BRYANT · filed 1997-05-01(c)

The Court finds that an analysis of § 1367(c) calls for deciding Plaintiffs’ common law claims even if the § 1983 claims are on interlocutory appeal. This case raises no novel or complex issue of law, and the Court has not dismissed Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state constitutional claims as a matter of discretion.

Griswold v. New Madrid County Group Practice, Inc. · filed 1997-06-19(c)(3)

To the extent plaintiff asserts supplemental state law claims based on the Missouri constitution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the same. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), district courts may decline jurisdiction over state claims as a “matter of discretion.”

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal cause of action remains in the case.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Rennard Street Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1997-08-20(c)(3)

In the instant case, this Court has determined that the plaintiff may proceed on its federal cause of action. Thus, it is appropriate at this time to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain related state law claims arising from the same transactions as a federal claim when state law does not predominate.

Keil v. CIGNA & Intracorp Rehab Management · filed 1997-09-15

14.The Court finds that the entire ease should remain in this Court and that remand of plaintiffs single state law claim is not appropriate. All of plaintiffs claims, state and federal, appear to arise out of the same transactions and incidents. Because it does not appear that there are matters in which state law predominates, the Court believes that it is an appropriate exercise of discretion to retain the entire case rather than remanding state law questions to the state courts for determination. Supplemental jurisdiction may be exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decide a state law claim arising from the same case or controversy as a federal claim, even after the federal question has been resolved, if it chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Illinois Central Railroad v. Fordice · filed 1997-09-30(a), (c)

This court, having original jurisdiction over the preemption claims, as well as questions of state law arising under the same case and controversy, finds that there is no compelling reason not to rule at this time regarding the interpretation of the term “motor vehicle” as it is used in Miss.Code Ann. § 63-11-8.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims whose separate trial would undermine judicial economy.

Morris v. Paul Revere Insurance Group · filed 1997-11-12(a)

Moreover, I would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the malpractice claims even if joinder of the parties were permitted. ... Among other concerns, the apparent necessity of severing and trying the malpractice claims separately in this case would virtually nullify any considerations of judicial economy.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, and the court should resolve those claims on the merits when federal-question jurisdiction remains over preempted claims.

St. John v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, Local 1010, Dist. 118, Local Lodge No. 254 · filed 1998-04-01

In these circumstances, the court should exercise both its federal question jurisdiction and its supplemental jurisdiction and resolve all claims on the merits.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claim remains, but the court should hear related state claims when federal question jurisdiction continues.

Nos. 97-2108, 97-2111 · filed 1998-04-01(c)(3)

Second, if the remaining claims are not preempted, the court may exercise discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. ... In these circumstances, the court should exercise both its federal question jurisdiction and its supplemental jurisdiction and resolve all claims on the merits.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in its discretion after considering fairness and the cause of delay.

Barrett v. Waldbauer · filed 1998-11-12

Although the court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action based upon supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the court declines to do so’. Even though Barrett contends that considerations of fairness weigh in favor of this court retaining jurisdiction, the court is not persuaded.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court on remand to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims after the federal claims are resolved.

Transitional Hospitals Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas, Inc. · filed 1999-01-25(c)

We REMAND the case to the district court which may exercise or decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.4 See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court on remand to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining claims.

Transitional Hospitals Corporation v. Blue Cross · filed 1999-01-25(c)

We REMAND the case to the district court which may exercise or decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim when one of its listed conditions is present.

Caron v. Charles E. Maxwell, P.C. · filed 1999-03-02(c)

The Ninth Circuit recognizes that the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Upon consideration of these factors, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Villas West.

Section 1367 leaves the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a surviving state law claim after the federal claims are dismissed.

Chanayil v. Gulati · filed 1999-03-02

We remand to the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to dismiss a supplemental claim when retaining it during pre-litigation screening would unnecessarily delay the other claims.

Ferris v. County of Kennebec · filed 1999-03-05

Though the Court is free, as it was in Hewett, to retain jurisdiction over the claim until the pre-litigation screening process has concluded, the Court exercises its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to dismiss Count II. To do otherwise would unnecessarily delay resolution of the other federal and state claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has resolved the only claim within its original jurisdiction and the remaining state-law claim raises a novel question of state law.

Brown v. Gino Morena Enterprises · filed 1999-03-26(c)

Accordingly, in light of the preference for having state courts apply state law and the lack of any gain to judicial economy by the retention of these claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims for defamation and dismisses them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) leaves the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction to the district court’s discretion, which it should revisit when federal claims may remain viable.

Southwest Williamson County Community Association, Inc. v. Slater · filed 1999-04-28(c)(3)

The district court should also revisit its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), in light of the potential continued viability of two federal claims. Of course, the decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction remains committed to the discretion of the district court.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction based on judicial economy and its familiarity with the proceedings.

Gravatt v. City of New York · filed 1999-05-24

In addition, discretionary jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, also exists on the basis of judicial economy and the familiarity with the proceedings over the more than two year period this case has been pending.

Section 1367(c) permits a court that has dismissed the federal claims to retain closely related state claims for judicial economy and decline jurisdiction over separate state claims.

Barber v. Pepsi-Cola Personnel, Inc. · filed 1999-07-08(c)

Because plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims alleging disability discrimination were virtually identical, judicial economy and common sense favor the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over both claims to decide them together on the merits. ... Under the circumstances, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the worker’s compensation retaliation and loss of consortium claims.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state Article 78 claim when exercising it would require adjudicating a purely state procedural remedy.

Camacho v. Brandon · filed 1999-07-16

Our jurisdiction over pendent state claims is purely discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and we see no reason to exercise that discretion by adjudicating a purely state procedural remedy.

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims in its discretion at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

De Rinaldis v. Llavona · filed 1999-08-16(c)

At this stage, it is sufficient to state that the Court— in its discretion — -refuses to decline its jurisdiction over said state claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the claim is ripe for decision, the state law is straightforward, and discovery is nearly completed.

Simon v. City of Naperville · filed 1999-10-20(a), (c)

I exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim, so construed, ... because the state law claims are ripe for decision, the applicable state law is straightforward, and discovery is nearly completed.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor hearing them together.

Maldonado-Cordero v. AT & T · filed 1999-11-01

Under the factors set forth in Gibbs, the Court finds that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants press strongly in favor of the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim joined with federal claims even when state courts retain jurisdiction over related individual matters.

Neiberger v. Hawkins · filed 1999-11-12(a)

Exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim under the Treatment Act is an appropriate exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Defendants’ request for abstention is particularly inappropriate where, as here, Defendants chose to remove this case to federal court in the first instance. Furthermore, resolution of this case will require application of both federal and state law. I exercise my discretion to retain original and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, and therefore, I deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Treatment Act claim.

Section 1367(a) permits the court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal claims against a defendant remain.

March v. Technical Employment, et al. · filed 2000-03-03(a)

Finally, to the extent that defendants move the court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim, that motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when it presents no novel or complex state-law issue and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor hearing it.

Leonard v. Dutchess County Department of Health · filed 2000-07-11(c)

For reasons related to judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity, this Court has determined that it is appropriate to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claim. ... First, the New York Court of Appeals has squarely addressed the issue to be decided; this is not a claim that presents a “novel or complex issue of state law.” Second, the state law claim arises out of the same undisputed facts which form the basis of plaintiffs’ federal claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims sharing operative facts with federal claims, even after dismissing the federal claims against particular defendants.

Suez Equity Investors, L.P. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank · filed 2001-05-08

Judge Wood was well within her discretion to reach these claims. The operative facts in the state and federal causes of action are the same, satisfying the Article III requirements for pendent jurisdiction. See Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 704 (2d Cir. 2000) (discussing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966)). Nor was it error for the district court to reach the state law causes of action against defendants Rindahl, Capital, Holdings, and Securities after dismissing the federal securities claims against them. The standards governing the state and federal law causes of action are similar and, in addressing the latter, Judge Wood was obliged to explore fully the allegations in the complaint. Reaching the state law claims was entirely appropriate as an exercise of the district court's discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994); Wanamaker v. Columbian Rope Co., 108 F.3d 462, 467 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing state age discrimination claims along with ADEA claim).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after resolving the federal claim, taking account of comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

D'Oliviera v. Rare Hospitality International, Inc. · filed 2001-07-18

However, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. ... Plaintiffs breach of contract claims relating to the company stock options and severance pay implicate Rhode Island law and should be decided by the Rhode Island Court where plaintiff originally brought this action.

Section 1367 leaves the district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims on remand.

Neague ex rel. Neague v. Cynkar · filed 2001-07-25

With respect to the state law claims, on remand the district court has the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 if it chooses to do so.

Section 1367 allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims after the federal claim has been dismissed, subject to the court’s discretion.

Stencel v. Augat Wiring Systems · filed 2001-08-13(a)

While Count II, violations of ERISA, has been dismissed from the case by order dated June 6, 2000, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the other two counts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), which provides that “the district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” ... District courts have wide discretion in determining whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Based on these four factors, the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over Counts I and III and proceeds with the following analysis.

Section 1367(c) leaves a district court discretion to decide a supplemental state claim even when a statutory ground for declining jurisdiction is satisfied.

International Ass'n of Firefighters of St. Louis & Jefferson Counties, Local 2665 v. City of Ferguson · filed 2002-03-25(c)

The District Court would always be free, of course, to proceed to the merits of the state claim, in its discretion, even if one of the conditions in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) for dismissal of the state claim had been satisfied.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when they arise from the same operative facts as surviving federal claims and judicial economy favors resolving them together.

Davis v. Regional Acceptance Corp. · filed 2002-10-04(c)

At this point, it appears appropriate for this Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy where both the state and federal claims arise from the same set of operative facts.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise discretion to hear claims under foreign law alongside federal claims.

Tachiona v. Mugabe · filed 2002-12-11

Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’ complaint invoked the Court’s pendent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and asserted claims under Zimbabwe law. ... The Court therefore will exercise its discretion to assert authority over those claims.

Section 1367 does not compel a district court to retain supplemental state-law claims merely because a related third-party federal claim is before it.

Billy E. Adkins, Administrator of the Estate of Helena R. Adkins v. Illinois Central Railroad Company · filed 2003-03-06

We cannot find that the district court was compelled to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remainder of the case, once Amtrak was before it in one capacity.

Section 1367(c)(3) does not authorize a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it enters a default judgment on a viable federal claim rather than dismissing that claim.

Trustees of the Construction Industry v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maintenance, Inc. · filed 2003-04-24(c)(3)

Here there is a viable federal claim, even though there has been a liability determination upon it. As the federal claim here was not dismissed, the exercise of discretion was not authorized by § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims while federal claims remain, based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates · filed 2003-07-08(c)

At this stage in the litigation, it is in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity to proceed with a class under both the state and federal consumer protection laws. The court may revisit the jurisdictional issue if the plaintiff withdraws her federal claim.

Section 1367 limits a district court’s discretion to hear state law claims when federal claims are dismissed early and the state claims raise unsettled questions of state law.

Sherwood 48 Associates v. Sony Corp. of America · filed 2003-09-29

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1367 gives District Courts discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, that discretion is not unlimited.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims when they do not predominate and no exceptional circumstances warrant declining jurisdiction, especially where the court retained authority to enforce the underlying settlement.

Myers v. Richland County · filed 2003-10-23(c)

Therefore, state claims cannot be said to predominate. Without the former federal claim, the state claims would not exist. This Court clearly and expressly retained jurisdiction over claims resulting from any subsequent breach of the settlement agreement, and this Court is in the best position to enforce its own decrees. Furthermore, this claim is not exceptional, it is a breach of contract suit and nothing more. The mere fact that the plaintiff was an elected official does not make this case exceptional. Therefore, after considering all of the factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court declines the defendant’s request to abstain and it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the present case.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims in its discretion.

Crayton v. State of California Department of Corrections · filed 2004-01-08(c)

Finally, the district court properly exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Crayton’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits, but does not require, a federal court to dismiss supplemental state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed.

Massey v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OGDEN AREA · filed 2004-02-12(c)

However, Massey concedes, as he must, that federal courts may, but are not required to dismiss pendant state claims after federal claims are dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after resolving the federal claims, but the court may retain it when judicial economy favors doing so.

Payday Loan Store of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of Madison · filed 2004-08-31(c)(3)

Like plaintiffs state constitutional issues, this argument does not implicate any federal issue and it would be permissible to dismiss it on that ground, rather than exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). However, I believe it would advance judicial efficiency to decide it along with the federal questions.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal claim is restored on appeal.

Kruse v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Wfc · filed 2004-09-10(c)

Because, as discussed above, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' federal claims with respect to mark-ups and remand the case to the district court, we also vacate the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' state law claims "so that the district court may, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction." Valley Disposal, Inc. v. Cent. Vt. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 31 F.3d 89, 103 (2d Cir.1994).

Section 1367 allows a district court on remand to decide whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims.

Chavez v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2004-09-30

On remand, the district court may exercise its discretion as to whether it will retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Kelly v. Sheriff's Department · filed 2004-10-18

Kelly has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. See Smith v. Amedisys, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 446 (5th Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after the jurisdiction-conferring claim is disposed of before trial.

National Westminster Bank, Plc v. Grant Prideco, Inc. · filed 2004-11-19(c)(3)

The question whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction following the pretrial disposal of the jurisdiction-conferring claim is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a setoff connected to a claim within federal jurisdiction, but leaves its exercise to discretion; in arbitration, the arbitrator exercises that discretion within the scope of the arbitration clause.

Lefkovitz, Sigmund v. Wagner, Nathan · filed 2005-01-18

Our view is that jurisdiction in such a case is possible but not automatic, because the jurisdictional issue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. That statute defines the supplemental jurisdiction of the federal courts, which is to say their juris- diction over matters related to matters over which federal jurisdiction is explicitly conferred. Channell v. Citicorp Nat’l Services, Inc., 89 F.3d 379, 384-86 (7th Cir. 1996); Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 358 F.3d 205, 212-14 (2d Cir. 2004). The statute makes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction dis- cretionary with the district court. So if this arbitration were instead a proceeding before the district court, it would be up to the judge, subject only to light appellate review, to determine whether to allow the setoff to be litigated before him. It seems to us—we cannot find a case on the point— that where the matter is before an arbitrator, the discretion should be his to exercise, with due regard for the principle that the scope of the arbitrator’s authority is defined by the arbitration clause itself.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state claim after summary judgment on the federal claim.

Edwards v. County of San Diego · filed 2005-03-03(c)

In doing so we note that with summary judgment having been granted on the federal claim, the district court on remand should exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the sole remaining state claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the related state-law claims present no especially novel or complex issues and retaining them serves judicial economy.

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation · filed 2005-09-16(c)

While I am not required to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, I find that it is appropriate to do so here.

Section 1367 allows a court to exercise its discretion to hear state-law claims together with federal claims in one action.

Johnson v. Wright · filed 2005-10-17

This Court has considered the factors relevant to the determination of whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and finds it is appropriate for it to exercise its discretion to hear all the claims together in one action.

Section 1367 authorizes district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction but does not confer jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Hall v. United States · filed 2005-10-31

Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not confer any jurisdiction upon the United States Court of Federal Claims because only the United States District Courts are authorized to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to retain state law claims when judicial efficiency favors exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Lassoff v. New Jersey · filed 2006-02-08

Given our disposition regarding the other claims and parties in this suit, we find the interests of judicial efficiency are better served through the Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Therefore we will not dismiss the remaining state law claims against Bally's.

Section 1367(a) makes the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims discretionary, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity guiding the decision.

Sellars, Paul v. City of Gary · filed 2006-07-07(a)

Pendent jurisdiction is discretionary and governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... Judicial economy and convenience both support the district court’s decision to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

If diversity jurisdiction is absent, a district court should reconsider exercising § 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after a federal claim is remanded for trial.

Noyes v. Kelly Services · filed 2007-05-29

In the absence of diversity jurisdiction, the district court should reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367, in light of our remand for trial on Noyes’ Title VII disparate treatment claim.

Section 1367(c) leaves the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a surviving state law claim to the district court’s discretion.

Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd. · filed 2007-07-24(c)

The district court may of course properly exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claim surviving preemption, but the decision to decline such jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is left to its discretion, see Briarpatch, 373 F.3d at 308.

Section 1367 permits a district court with jurisdiction over a removed case to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims against another defendant.

Burns v. Conley · filed 2007-11-02

Consequently, because this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on Freddie Mac's removal, the Court is well within its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against Conley.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after disposing of the federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding them.

STEFANIK v. Reno · filed 2008-03-13(c)

Should the recommendation for summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiffs constitutional claims be adopted, the court would be free to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because these pendent claims clearly raise no genuine issues of material fact, however, this court believes that supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised, if for no other reason than judicial economy.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after the federal claims fail, and that choice is within its discretion when the amended pleading no longer asserts diversity jurisdiction.

Sikora and Associates v. Storey · filed 2008-04-16(c)

The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sikora’s state-law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even when it has ruled for the plaintiff on a federal claim.

Dargis v. Sheahan · filed 2008-05-16(c)

However, we see no problem with the district court’s action because actual dismissal of all federal claims is not required for a district court to exercise the discretion afforded it regarding supplemental jurisdiction. Section 1367 itself allows dismissal of state law claims when they raise novel or complex questions of state law, or where they predominate over the federal claims, with no reference in either instance to dismissal of federal claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same nucleus of operative fact as federal claims when the state claims do not predominate or raise novel or unsettled state law issues.

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen · filed 2008-07-31(c)

Because plaintiffs’ state law claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact as their federal claims, and because the state law claims neither predominate in this action nor raise particularly novel or unsettled issues of New York law, the Court shall exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims (Counts IV, VI, IX, and X).

Section 1367(c) makes supplemental jurisdiction discretionary, so a court should resolve mandatory CAFA jurisdictional exceptions before deciding whether to exercise it.

Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of NJ · filed 2008-08-01(c)

That section sets forth a discretionary standard in § 1367(c). ... Because the exceptions in § 1332(d)(4) are mandatory, the Court should determine whether it is precluded from exercising jurisdiction under § 1332(d)(4) first, before considering whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with surviving federal claims when they present no novel issues of state law.

Vs Ex Rel. TS v. Muhammad · filed 2008-09-30(c)(3)

The denial of the medical defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims also nullifies their request to have the court decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As will be discussed in § II.C, infra, the court finds that the state claims presented in these cases arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact as the federal claims and do not present novel issues of state law. Therefore, the court, in its discretion, chooses to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction to the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims, but leaves its exercise to the court’s discretion.

IL Bell Tele Co v. Ferrous Miner Holdin · filed 2008-12-22

Although both are within the supplemental jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the exercise of that jurisdiction is, as the statute makes clear, discretionary; the exercise of diversity jurisdiction is not.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over common law claims after the claims supporting original jurisdiction have been dismissed, with judicial economy, convenience, and fairness informing that choice.

Ceasar v. Rosstead · filed 2009-01-06(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs common law claims. This matter has advanced only as far as a motion to dismiss, and neither party is inclined to proceed.

Section 1367 gives the district court authority to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Everson v. Leis · filed 2009-02-20

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367 vests the district court with the authority to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. The district court has not yet ruled on the matter. Accordingly, we do not address Defendants state-law immunity argument at this time.

Section 1367(c) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims merely because they involve local regulations and an unusual theory of arbitrariness.

Springdale Venture, LLC v. US Worldmeds, LLC · filed 2009-05-05(c)

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims presented in this case. The fact that this case involves local regulations and that Plaintiffs may be proceeding under a unique theory as to why the Planning Commission’s actions were arbitrary does not outweigh the default assumption that the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all related state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court with federal question jurisdiction to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Noel v. Hall · filed 2009-06-12

The district court exercised jurisdiction over those wiretap claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and in doing so did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that we consider in this disposition.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after the federal claim is dismissed when the circumstances support retaining it.

Smith v. North American Specialty Ins. · filed 2009-08-26

To the extent that Smith’s claim against North American can be viewed as a claim under state law for breach of contract, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

Wang v. Miller · filed 2009-12-16(c)

As to Wang’s State law claims, a district court has discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Wang’s state law claims in the instant case.

Section 1367(c)(1) and (3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a novel state law claim after adjudicating the federal claims.

Wireless Towers, LLC v. St. Johns County, Fla. · filed 2010-02-03(c)(1), (3)

Having adjudicated the federal claims, the Court has discretion not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wireless’s state law claim.

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

Bio v. Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals · filed 2010-06-14(c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the district court has discretion to decide on remand whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(1) allows a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that present a novel issue when economy and convenience favor keeping related claims together.

Arkema Inc. v. ANDERSON ROOFING CO., INC. · filed 2010-06-28(c)(1)

Even if the Oregon Superfund Act claims pose a novel issue of state law, however, the values of economy and convenience weigh heavily in favor of retaining jurisdiction over the state law claims against Anderson Roofing.

Section 1367 grants supplemental jurisdiction to federal district courts, but does not give the Court of Federal Claims supplemental jurisdiction.

Waltner v. United States · filed 2011-04-22(a)

As noted by another Judge of the Court of Federal Claims, “28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not confer any jurisdiction upon the United States Court of Federal Claims because only the United States District Courts are authorized to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.” Hall v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 51, 57 (2005); see also Trek Leasing, Inc. v. United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 673, 678 (2004) (indicating 28 U.S.C. § 1367 “only applies specifically to federal district courts.”). Therefore, this court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim.

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

Bell v. HCR Manor Care Facility of Winter Park · filed 2011-06-28(c)

We VACATE the district court’s opinion to the extent the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and REMAND to allow the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bell’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing the federal claims’ operative facts when the state issues are not novel or complex and separate trials would duplicate effort.

Delgado v. ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE CORP. · filed 2011-08-04(c)

The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Here, the state issues are not unsettled or novel and complex. Plaintiffs state and federal law claim involve the identical nucleus of operative facts, and require a very similar, if not identical, showing in order to succeed. If this court forced plaintiff to pursue his state law claims in state court, the result would be two highly duplicative trials, constituting an unnecessary expenditure of plaintiffs, defendant’s, and the two courts’ resources.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, but does not require it to do so.

Charvat v. NMP, LLC · filed 2011-08-30

Although the district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not mandatory.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when an enumerated ground applies, but does not require dismissal merely because a ground is present.

Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Madison County · filed 2011-10-20(c)

To be sure, the fact that one or more of the grounds for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction set forth in section 1367(c) applies does not mean that dismissal is mandated.

Section 1367 gives courts discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering convenience, fairness, federalism, relatedness, and judicial economy.

Pleasants v. Town of Louisa · filed 2012-03-12

The Court has discretion to exercise or decline jurisdiction over these claims. ... Taking into account the convenience of the parties, fairness, federalism concerns, the relatedness of the claims and issues, and considerations of judicial economy, I believe it best to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Pleasants’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal claims that form part of the same case or controversy as federal claims and to grant summary judgment on those claims.

Turner v. NYU Hospitals Center · filed 2012-04-02

Turner’s state and municipal discrimination and retaliation claims “form part of the same case or controversy,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and are analytically identical to Turner’s federal claims, see Petrosino v. Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210, 220 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004); Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 629 n.1 (2d Cir. 1997). In such circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction to grant summary judgment to NYUHC on the state and municipal law claims.

Section 1367(c) leaves the district court to decide in the first instance whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after the sole federal claim is dismissed.

Malast v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n · filed 2012-04-12(c)

The only federal claim pending at the time the district court entered its preemption judgment has now been settled and dismissed, and dismissal on any alternate ground would require exercising supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The district court should decide, in the first instance, whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) gives a court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to federal claims in a removed case without requiring the court to affirmatively exercise that jurisdiction.

Hescott v. City of Saginaw · filed 2012-08-07(a)

To the contrary, Defendants removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, with the Court having original jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, because the state law claims are so related to the federal claims, those too were removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court need not affirmatively exercise jurisdiction over claims that have been properly removed by Defendants.

Under § 1367(c), a district court should consider judicial economy when deciding whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, but other factors can favor dismissal.

Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. · filed 2012-08-23(c)(3)

While we agree that a district court should consider judicial economy when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, other factors weigh in favor of dismissal in this case.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, but that discretion does not extend to claims completely preempted by federal law.

Gordon v. McGinley · filed 2012-11-13(c)

While district courts generally have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), where the state law claims are completely preempted by federal law such discretion is lacking.

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claims survive a motion to dismiss.

D.H. ex rel. Dawson v. Clayton County School District · filed 2012-11-16(a)

As stated above, this Court will not dismiss the federal claims against CCSD. As Plaintiffs claims have survived the motion to dismiss, this Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims arising from the same facts as federal constitutional claims when doing so is appropriate and judicially economical.

Taylor v. Hale · filed 2012-12-17

Plaintiff’s state law claims against the respective defendants for assault and battery and negligence arise out of the same set of facts that are the basis for his constitutional claims against them for excessive force and failure to protect. Thus, the Court has considered the factors relevant to the determination of whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court finds that it is appropriate and judicially economical for it to consider Plaintiff's state law claims as they arise out of the same facts and are against the same defendants as his constitutional claims.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims closely related to federal claims and allows a district court to decline it when the state claims predominate, raise novel or complex state law issues, or present exceptional circumstances.

Sanchez v. City of Fresno · filed 2012-12-26(a), (c)

The Parties appear to be operating under the assumption it is appropriate for the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case. The Court is of a similar opinion. The state law claims are closely related to the federal claims, sometimes overlapping almost entirely, do not predominate over the federal claims, do not raise novel or complex issues of state law, and no exceptional circumstances are apparent.

Section 1367 gives a district court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims or decline it after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Beriont v. Gte Laboratories · filed 2013-08-06(c)(3)

On remand, it is within the district court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, or to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it first dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over closely associated state law claims.

Kevin Betskoff, Sr. v. Bank of America National Association · filed 2013-08-26(a)

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over his closely associated state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (2006); Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 644 (4th Cir. 2011).

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in its discretion, including when a bankruptcy court has terminated its jurisdiction upon entry of a final decree.

Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Citrin · filed 2013-09-30(c)

Although the Second Circuit has permitted the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, see In re Lionel, 29 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir.1994), it is within the court’s discretion to decline to exercise that power. The bankruptcy court expressed its intention to terminate jurisdiction upon entry of a final decree and has declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. That decision was not erroneous or an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction when state and federal claims are intertwined and economy, convenience, and fairness favor resolving them.

Courtland Realty Associates v. Nash · filed 2013-11-25(c)

Furthermore, principles of economy, convenience, and fairness strongly counsel in favor of this court retaining jurisdiction and resolving, finally, the rights of these parties. ... Even if the jurisdictional basis was solely based on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, however, I find that there are numerous reasons to continue exercising jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in the specified circumstances; when none applies, exercising jurisdiction over a related state-law claim is not an abuse of discretion.

Hucul Advertising, LLC v. Charter Township of Gaines · filed 2014-02-05(c)

Therefore, where no statutory exception applies, a district court cannot abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim that forms part of the same case or controversy.

Section 1367 allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after the federal claims are dismissed, while leaving it discretion to decline jurisdiction when the state claim predominates.

McCray v. Carter · filed 2014-07-03(c)(2), (3)

Plaintiff, however, has not appealed the dismissal of her federal claims, and those causes of actions will not go forward on remand. The district court continues to have supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s WPA claim, see Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th Cir. 1996), but this state law claim entirely dominates the case at this point in proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), (3). The district court may wish to consider whether the courts of the State of Michigan are the more appropriate forum for this dispute, which involves significant issues of fact and law for the State and the City of Detroit. However, this choice lies entirely within the sound discretion of the district court.

Section 1367(a) permits supplemental jurisdiction over state claims that are part of the same case or controversy as a federal claim, and judicial efficiency may favor exercising that jurisdiction.

Friedman v. Maspeth Federal Loan & Savings Ass'n · filed 2014-07-14(a)

It is in the discretion of the court to determine if supplemental jurisdiction is warranted. The court is now immersed in the case and the parties have expended considerable time and incurred attorney’s fees. In the interest of judicial efficiency, it is proper to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) leaves the district court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims or return them to state court when only state claims remain.

Retail Property Trust v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America · filed 2014-09-23(c)

In as much as only state claims remain, the district court may decide whether to continue to exercise supplemental 44 RETAIL PROP. TRUST V. UBCJA jurisdiction over the state claims or send them back to state court, as appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367 permits a district court to retain jurisdiction over related state-law claims after federal claims are removed from the pleading, while leaving it discretion whether to continue exercising that jurisdiction.

Maguire ex rel. Estate of Maguire v. A.C. & S., Inc. · filed 2014-11-21(a)

Although the Court would continue to have subject matter jurisdiction upon the filing of such an amended complaint, the issue of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims would then squarely be presented.

Section 1367(c)(4) leaves a federal court discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims despite a state statute giving state circuit courts exclusive original jurisdiction, especially when dismissal would cause duplicative litigation.

White v. Washington County · filed 2015-01-12(c)(4)

The Court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is, as defendants point out, discretionary and the Court may decline to exercise such jurisdiction even if otherwise proper “in exceptional circumstances [where] there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). ... The undersigned continues to find the rationale outlined in Brown persuasive, particularly given the early stage of this case. If the TGTLA claims were dismissed, the plaintiff would be required to pursue those claims in a separate state court action while also pursuing her federal claims, which arise from the same set of operative facts, in this Court. Such a result would be duplicative and a waste of judicial and the parties’ resources. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss the plaintiffs TGTLA claims at this time and the motion to dismiss will be DENIED in part.

Section 1367 allows a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over fewer than all state-law claims outside its original jurisdiction.

In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership · filed 2015-06-04

Zcom also takes issue with a handful of the district court’s procedural rulings: denial of an extension of time to file a motion for leave to amend; the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over fewer than all of the state-law claims that were never subject to CAFA jurisdiction; and denial of a (completely baseless) motion for recusal. None of these rulings was an abuse of discretion.

Section 1367(a) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when a claim within its original jurisdiction remains.

Adams-Erazo v. Hospital San Gerardo · filed 2015-07-24(a)

When a district court has original jurisdiction over a claim, it also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that form part of the same ease or controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... In light of these factors, as well as plaintiffs’ remaining EMTALA screening claim to ground jurisdiction, the Court will exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Puerto Rico law claims.

Section 1367 leaves the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction discretionary, so a court may require administrative exhaustion before hearing a related claim.

Arabalo v. City & County of Denver · filed 2015-09-09

Second, Arabalo argues that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 permits jurisdiction over the claim predicated on the Misappropriation Investigation, and so the district court could have elected to ignore the administrative exhaustion requirement. ... Because ancillary jurisdiction is discretionary, we see no abuse of discretion in holding a party to her burden to exhaust her administrative remedies before seeking judicial recourse.

Section 1367 leaves the district court discretion on remand to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Byrd v. City of Bossier · filed 2015-09-10

We VACATE the district court’s dismissal of the Louisiana constitutional claims, and we leave it in the district court’s sound discretion whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims on remand.

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

Hankey v. Town of Concord-Carlisle · filed 2015-09-30(c)

In considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that the interests of fairness, judicial economy, and convenience weigh in favor of resolving the state-law claims. ... The court will therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 leaves the district court discretion to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Osolinski v. Marisa Bigot · filed 2016-06-01

On remand, the district court should exercise its discretion as to whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Osolinski’s state law claims.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise discretion over whether to hear state-law claims brought under its supplemental jurisdiction on remand.

Fernandez v. Jackson · filed 2016-08-04

The district court dismissed Fernandez’s state law claims on the ground that violations of state law do not give rise to a claim for relief under § 1983. However, Fernandez expressly brought these claims under the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On remand, the district court should exercise its discretion as to whether it will review Fernandez’s state law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a negligence claim when there is no good reason to exercise it.

Freeman v. County of Orange ex rel. Orange County Sheriff's Department · filed 2016-08-31

Further, even if Freeman’s negligence claim fell under § 959(a), there is no good reason for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1367(c) makes dismissal of supplemental state law claims discretionary, not mandatory.

Kongtcheu v. Richard Constable, III · filed 2016-12-21(c)

Dismissal under § 1367(c) is discretionary, not mandatory.

Section 1367 permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims in its discretion when a federal claim remains pending.

US ex rel. Patrick Carson v. Manor Care, Incorporated · filed 2017-03-16

Because we remand the FCA retaliation claim, the district court may continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims as it so determines in its discretion.

Section 1367 gives federal courts power to hear related state claims and discretion whether to exercise that jurisdiction.

Stephens v. Nick Degiovanni, individually · filed 2017-03-30

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal court has “power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,” and “discretion not to exercise such jurisdiction.” ... We also vacate the judge’s dismissal without prejudice of Stephens’s state-law claim of assault and battery against Deputy DeGiovanni and leave to the discretion of the judge how to handle the state-law claim of assault and battery on remand.

Section 1367 permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the federal claims remain substantial and the case’s progress favors keeping the claims together.

BlackRock Allocation Target Shares v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2017-03-30

Because (i) Judge Ber-man was correct in finding that he could exercise supplemental jurisdiction; (ii) Plaintiffs' federal Trust claims are no longer as numerically overwhelmed, and therefore substantially predominated, by Plaintiffs’ PSA Trust claims; (iii) discovery in this case has progressed significantly since Judge Berman’s Decision and Order; and (iv) Defendant has not moved the Court to withhold supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' PSA Trust claims, the Court affirms here that it has and is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims.

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

Jackson v. Ramirez · filed 2017-05-31(c)(3)

In addition, the district court had the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Jackson’s state law claims. See Kolari v. N.Y.-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A district court ‘may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if it ‘has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3))).

Section 1367(c)(1) permits a district court to consider novel or sensitive state-law issues when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively · filed 2018-08-10(c)(1)

Additionally, the court may consider other relevant factors, including the presence of novel or sensitive issues of state law.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when the advanced stage of litigation, familiarity with the issues, and hardship of refiling favor doing so.

Police Benevolent Ass'n of N.Y.S., Inc. v. Cuomo · filed 2018-09-24(c)

In the present matter, considering the advanced stage of the litigation and the Court's familiarity with the issues in this case, combined with the likely hardship to both parties should Plaintiffs re-file in state court, the factors clearly weigh in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) makes declining supplemental jurisdiction discretionary, so the possibility of declining it does not by itself make a proposed amendment futile.

Higgins v. Boston Scientific Corporation · filed 2018-10-30(c)

Given the permissive nature of this determination, this Court rejects the conclusion that Higgins’ proposed Third Amended Complaint is futile merely because the Court could decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367 leaves the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction discretionary when no federal cause of action remains.

Caraballo v. Hosp. Pavia Hato Rey, Inc. · filed 2019-02-28(a)

The Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction in a case in which there is no cause of action under a federal statute is discretionary.

Section 1367(c) allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in its discretion when it resolves the case without reaching related federal constitutional claims.

Carmichael v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 2019-08-28(c)

The Court, in its discretion, retains subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(a) permits a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over substantially overlapping state-law claims after the federal claims are dropped, when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify doing so.

Verma v. 3001 Castor Inc · filed 2019-08-30(a)

We also believe the Court acted within its discretion to exercise jurisdiction over those claims under § 1367(a). Before the FLSA claims were dropped, the overlap between the federal and state-law claims was substantial. Allowing Verma to pursue them through the customary “dual-track” procedure we endorsed in Knepper was reasonable. 675 F.3d at 262. And although the federal claims were not presented at trial, the Court may have reasonably concluded that “considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide[d] an affirmative justification for” exercising jurisdiction. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims when no statutory reason to decline it is present and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor hearing them.

D'Addario v. D'Addario · filed 2019-09-23(c)

Defendants make no argument against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims which were included in the FAC, (see generally Defs.’ Joint Opp.), and none of the reasons for which a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” are present here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity will be served by exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's valid state law claims. Thus the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Eight of the PSAC.

Section 1367(c) calls for consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Whitaker v. SRT LA Retail, LLC · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Fernandez v. Western Signature Properties, Inc. · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Whitaker v. Innovative Dining SM, LLC · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Whitaker v. Shami · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Cho v. M and S Mexican Food, Inc. · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Whitaker v. Westfield America, Inc. · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for a court considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Whitaker v. OSI Flemings, LLC · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) calls for consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Perri v. Metro PCS · filed 2019-09-24(c)

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).