28 U.S.C. § 1367

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the case.

Villegas v. Valaskantzis · 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 over state law claims, a court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.

Whitaker v. PS Business Parks, L.P · 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.

Langer v. Enco Properties, 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) requires a court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at each stage of the litigation.

Perri v. Sinn · filed 2019-09-27(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.

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

Whitaker v. The Leader Fairfax, Inc. · filed 2019-10-04(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).

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c), a court considers judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Sung Choi v. Delgado · filed 2019-10-04(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.

Whitaker v. Maike · filed 2019-10-04(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 decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when judicial economy favors remand after the sole federal claim is promptly dismissed.

Ignacio v. El Fadl · filed 2019-10-08(c)

The Court would find that the interests of judicial economy are served by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case. ... Moreover, the sole federal cause of action was voluntarily dismissed within weeks of removal.

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

Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company · filed 2019-10-09(c)

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

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

Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Alhambra Valley Properties, LLC · filed 2019-10-10(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)(3) does not warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims survive dismissal, and state claims do not substantially predominate under § 1367(c)(2) merely because they outnumber federal claims when they are substantially similar or alternative causes of action arising from the same facts.

MSC Safety Solutions, LLC v. Trivent Safety Consulting, LLC · filed 2019-10-15(c)(2), (c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims have survived dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court will refuse Defendants’ invitation to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s eight state law claims do not substantially predominate over the two federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2); although the state claims outnumber the federal claims, two of the state claims are substantially similar to the federal claims and the other six are alternate causes of action that arise out of the same nucleus of facts as the federal claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint fails to state a federal claim.

Bratcher v. Mancuso · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

Because the Complaint fails to state a federal claim, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiffs supplemental state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims and to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Irvin v. The Fort Sill National Bank · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims set forth in the complaint. As such, Plaintiff's state law defamation claims will be dismissed without prejudice to be filed, if Plaintiff so chooses, in a Tennessee state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim and to decline jurisdiction if the plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately.

Estrada v. Target Corporation · filed 2019-10-16(c)

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within ten days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Under section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim and may decline jurisdiction if the response is untimely or inadequate.

Estrada v. HMH Property Investments, LP · filed 2019-10-16(c)

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within ten days of the date of this Order. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Davis v. Mortgage Research Center, LLC · filed 2019-10-16(c)(3)

In sum, Count | is dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as to Counts 2 and 3, and dismisses them without prejudice.

Under § 1367(c)(1) and (4), common factual and legal issues favor retaining supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims present no sufficiently novel or complex issue and no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons justify declining jurisdiction.

Harness v. Anderson County · filed 2019-10-17(c)(1), (c)(4)

The Court sees no issue in Plaintiff’s THRA claims so novel or complex that the values of judicial economy, fairness, or comity would counsel toward declining supplemental jurisdiction. On the contrary, the values of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness all support maintaining supplemental jurisdiction, given the common factual and legal issues between Plaintiff’s federal and state claims. The Court also sees no circumstances so exceptional or reasons so compelling as to incline the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s THRA claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to continue declining supplemental jurisdiction for efficiency, comity, and novelty after a federal claim is reinstated on remand when the appellate mandate does not resolve the state-law dismissal.

FIH, LLC v. Foundation Capital Partners, LLC · filed 2019-10-22(c)

But even then, this Court would still have the authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction as there is “no violation where [a] lower court addresse[s] on remand an issue that was not decided by this Court in the original appeal” as is the case here. Id. at 99 (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent any direction from the Second Circuit on this issue, this Court concludes that its dismissal of the state law claims-for reasons of efficiency, comity, and novelty-remains in place.

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

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 651 v. Philbeck · filed 2019-10-22

Again, however, because Local 651’s federal question claims can go forward, the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 is proper.

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

CHASE v. MERSON · filed 2019-10-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), dismissal of the remaining state law claims is appropriate in a case like this when “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” It is a discretionary decision. ... The other Delgado factors do not outweigh the “particularly important” comity concern so as to justify supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction when state-law claims substantially predominate over federal claims, with complex state-law issues providing additional support.

Wisz v. Waldron · filed 2019-10-22(c)(1), (c)(2)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parties’ state law claims – i.e., Counts II-V in the complaint and II-V in the counterclaim – because they substantially predominate over the claims brought under federal law and because at least some of the claims appear to raise complex issues of state law.

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

Zarian v. Yamaguchi · filed 2019-10-23(c)

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

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal.

The Depot, Inc. v. Caring for Montanans, Inc. · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)

The Court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). This Court has broad discretion over whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Satey v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 521 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008). The decision should rest on “principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988). The Court finds that these considerations weigh in favor of declining continuing jurisdiction.

Before declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, the court should give the parties an opportunity to be heard in the interest of fairness.

Brees v. HMS Global Maritime Inc · filed 2019-10-25(c)

Although “it is generally within a district court's discretion either to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate the pendent state claims or to remand them to state court,” Harrell v. 20th Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991), in the interest of fairness, the parties should be given an opportunity to be heard on whether the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists, considering the circumstances of the case, the nature and governing law of the state claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Canania v. Daiso Japan No. 4893 · filed 2019-10-25(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction based on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the state claims, the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

Kong v. In Sik Shin · filed 2019-10-25(c)

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

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

Kong v. Chen · filed 2019-10-25(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Verdiglione v. Bear and Baker, Ltd · filed 2019-10-25(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Williams v. Digiorgio · filed 2019-10-25(c)

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

Even when supplemental jurisdiction exists, § 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline to exercise it.

Adelfo Cerame, Jr. v. Olen Properties Corp. · filed 2019-10-25(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

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

Williams v. Mike Tadros dba Allstate Insurance · filed 2019-10-25(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Zarian v. Triple M Properties · filed 2019-10-25(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 even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Verdiglione v. Cahuenga CW, LLC · filed 2019-10-25(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 court to require a plaintiff to show why supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim should be exercised in light of California’s measures against abusive disability-access litigation.

Uriarte-Limon v. John Anthony Enterprises · filed 2019-10-25(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice when all federal claims are dismissed early in the case.

McGagh v. Cooper · filed 2019-10-25(c)(3)

As for the remaining state common law claims, the Court declines to exercise pendant jurisdiction. ... “When, as here, the federal claim is dismissed early in the case, the federal courts are inclined to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice rather than retain supplemental jurisdiction.” Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). The Court will do so here.

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim that substantially predominates over an ADA claim when comity and discouraging evasion of California’s pleading requirements also constitute exceptional circumstances.

Jackson v. Chrissa Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2019-10-28(c)(2), (c)(4)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after granting summary judgment on all federal claims.

CARE ONE MANAGEMENT, LLC v. UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, SEIU 1199 · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

Here, having found no genuine issues of material fact as to Plaintiffs’ RICO claims and having granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on those claims, the only claims remaining are state law defamation and trade libel. This Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and they will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc. · filed 2019-10-29(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed the FDCPA claims, it declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims after dismissing all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Hampton v. KPM LLC · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

The court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. Thus, even assuming without deciding that the counterclaims are compulsory and that the court could exercise: supplemental jurisdiction, the court declines to do so.

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

Floyd-Jefferson v. Reynoldsburg City School Board of Education · filed 2019-10-30(c)(3)

Because the Court dismisses all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Floyd- Jefferson’s state claims found in Count Five. Those claims are REMANDED to state court for determination. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims upon dismissal of all federal claims when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity support that choice.

(PC)Johnson v. CDCR · filed 2019-10-31(c)(3)

However, because the undersigned recommends dismissal of the federal claims, the undersigned recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. The values of economy, convenience, fairness and comity support this recommendation.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

McCargo v. Fudge · filed 2019-11-01(c)(3)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Plaintiff's claims based in state law are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them now that all federal claims in this action have been dismissed.

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

Dent v. Heartland Coca Cola · filed 2019-11-04(c)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that plaintiff has any unarticulated state law discrimination or retaliation claims against defendants, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits remand of remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial when the court has invested little in the litigation and has not addressed the state-law merits.

Pittman v. Swan River, LLC · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

Here, the entire litigation has only produced thirty-nine docket entries. The Court has not decided a single discovery or pre-trial motion. After this Order and Reasons, the Court will have only decided two dispositive motions, both of which exclusively addressed issues of federal law. In fact, neither party has substantively briefed an issue of state law throughout the entire course of the litigation. Thus, the Court finds that in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claims, the case should be remanded to state court to determine the extent and validity of Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor state-court adjudication.

Awad v. Omar · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)

Because the Court has dismissed that claim, it has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to dismiss plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims. ... Weighing these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Grant v. Seidler · filed 2019-11-06(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Robinson v. Cleveland State Univsersity (CSU) · filed 2019-11-06(c)(3)

In light of this dismissal, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, which are better resolved by the Ohio courts.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to dismiss those state law claims without prejudice.

Little v. CSRA (MAG+) · filed 2019-11-07(c)(3)

Finally, the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state law claims is discretionary. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . .. ” Because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims, these claims are also due to be dismissed without prejudice.

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

Ghadiri v. The Wok Experience · filed 2019-11-07(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)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Nemcik v. Krippendorf · filed 2019-11-07(c)(3)

To the extent Ms. Nemcik has brought a state claim, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (providing that a court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).

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

Tan Phu Cuong Investment LLC v. King County · filed 2019-11-12(c)(3)

The Court’s granting of summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims for inverse condemnation and for declaratory relief under the CWA eliminates the only causes of action over which the Court has original jurisdiction. ... The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction may be declined when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal of the remaining local-law claims.

Dbw Partners, LLC v. Bloomberg, L.P. · filed 2019-11-12(c)(3)

Because the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2018), the Court “decline[s] to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over” Capitol Forum’s remaining common law claim for misappropriation of proprietary information under the “hot news” doctrine, id. Whether to retain jurisdiction over remaining common law claims after the dismissal of federal claims is a matter left to a district court’s discretion.

Under § 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state disability-access claims in light of fairness and comity concerns.

Lee v. Dhuri · filed 2019-11-12(c)

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

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims before trial when the relevant considerations weigh against retaining jurisdiction.

Calhoun 379175 v. Tyler · filed 2019-11-12(c)(3)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. Id. Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

After all claims within original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims and dismiss them without prejudice, considering comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Vaughn v. Sizemore Inc · filed 2019-11-13(c)(3)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim once “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... In light of this guidance, the Court finds that it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

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

Johnson v. Yarbrough · filed 2019-11-13(c)(3)

The Court now declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim against the Town of Parrish, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Therefore, the Court will remand this remaining claim to state court.

Section 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when it exists, considering the circumstances of the case, the nature and governing law of the state claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Hester v. PS Orangeco, Inc. · filed 2019-11-13(c)

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

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

Adelfo Cerame, Jr. v. 3013 Enterprise LLC · filed 2019-11-13(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the sole federal claim while litigation is still in its early stages.

Sampson v. Subaru of America, Inc. · filed 2019-11-13(c)(3)

The remaining claims are based on violations of California law. The Court, therefore, has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Cole v. Empire City Casino/MGM · filed 2019-11-13(c)

The Court declines under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Rutherford v. Kelsch · filed 2019-11-18(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

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

Cabrera v. SMS Retail Management, LLC · filed 2019-11-18(c)

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

Even when supplemental jurisdiction exists, § 1367(c) gives district courts discretion to decline to exercise it over related state-law claims.

Jin Lee v. Takano International Corporation · filed 2019-11-18(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Lee v. Goodwill Industries of Orange County California · filed 2019-11-18(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Dunn v. Adir International, LLC · filed 2019-11-18(c)

Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state law claims.

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

Lee v. MH Furnishings LLC · filed 2019-11-18(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 even when it exists, considering the circumstances of the case and the nature and relationship of the state and federal claims.

Kong v. JHC Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2019-11-18(c)

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

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

Acevedo v. Rainbow Rising, LLC · filed 2019-11-18(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Rutherford v. Coastland Chapman Plaza, L.P. · filed 2019-11-18(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Zarian v. Legere · filed 2019-11-18(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.

Williams v. Le · filed 2019-11-18(c)

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

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, a court may require the plaintiff to show why it should do so.

Weilch v. M and I Majers, Inc. · filed 2019-11-19(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).

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

Rutherford v. WHG Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2019-11-19(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Williams v. Slayton · filed 2019-11-19(c)

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

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. Movita Juice Bars, LLC · filed 2019-11-20(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Williams v. Cicoria · filed 2019-11-21(c)

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(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 even when it exists.

Holland v. Sanh Doi Ho · filed 2019-11-21(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits discretionary refusal of supplemental jurisdiction, and a court may require a plaintiff to justify retaining jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim.

Rutherford v. K and K Food, Inc. · filed 2019-11-22(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 district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Adelfo Cerame, Jr. v. 11747 Bellagio, LLC · filed 2019-11-22(c)

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

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

Whitaker v. Kang · filed 2019-11-25(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 considering whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(c) over an Unruh Act claim, a court may require the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide sworn facts bearing on high-frequency-litigant status.

Whitaker v. Minato · filed 2019-11-26(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

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

Lee v. JAAK LLC · filed 2019-11-27(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when no compelling reasons remain to adjudicate the state-law claims in federal court.

Nuevos Destinos, LLC v. Peck · filed 2019-12-02(c)(3)

With the RICO and RICO conspiracy claims dismissed, no compelling reasons remain to adjudicate the common-law claims in federal court. In its discretion, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state-law claims against Peck and SKE.

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

Jenkins v. Miller · filed 2019-12-02(c)(3)

As the court has dismissed all federal claims, it declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims.

A district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining common law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

West v. Huvelle · filed 2019-12-03(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if,” as in this case, it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... The Court also declines sua sponte to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s common law claims and therefore dismisses the plaintiff’s claims against Johnson without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

BELIN v. O'NEILL · filed 2019-12-03(c)(3)

Since there are no other federal claims, the Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Stone v. Martin, 720 F. App’x 132, 136 (3d Cir. 2017).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial and no compelling reasons favor retaining jurisdiction.

Bartlett v. Washington · filed 2019-12-04(c)(3)

This is not the rare situation in which “a district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction even if all of the underlying federal claims have been dismissed.” Gamel, 625 F.3d at 952. And plaintiffs do not provide any compelling reasons to depart from the usual practice. We therefore affirm the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Under § 1367(c)(2) and (4), substantial predominance of an Unruh Act claim and circumvention of California’s pleading requirements can warrant requiring a plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be retained.

Whitaker v. Madjidi · filed 2019-12-04(c)(2), (c)(4)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for similar reasons.

Under § 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim and submit declarations establishing whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Whitaker v. Jaber Original Holdings III, LLC · filed 2019-12-04(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss remaining state-law claims without prejudice when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

CARVER v. VALLIERE · filed 2019-12-04(c)(3)

Because the undersigned has recommended the dismissal of all federal claims at this pre-trial stage, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and accordingly dismiss the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed or when broader state-law claims would substantially predominate over a single federal claim based on a discrete set of facts.

Capolupo v. Eills · filed 2019-12-05(c)(2), (c)(3)

Having dismissed all of the claims over which this court has original jurisdiction, this court ... has discretion to decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s remaining state- ... law claims. ... the court finds that these five state-law claims, if not dismissed, would “substantially predominate” ... over the single § 1983 claim on which Plaintiff has been granted leave to amend.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Vetere v. City of New York · filed 2019-12-05(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may be asserting.

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law contract and good-faith claims that present issues separate and distinct from the federal FLSA claims and would needlessly complicate the action.

Secretary, Department of Labor v. MICA Contracting, LLC · filed 2019-12-10(c)

The issues involved in defendants’ claims of breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith that are unrelated to the FLSA claims in this case would be separate and distinct from the FLSA violations alleged by the Secretary and would needlessly complicate this case. Therefore, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Counts 1 and 2 of the proposed third-party complaint.

Under § 1367(c), retaining supplemental jurisdiction is an abuse of discretion when the party invoking federal jurisdiction has been dismissed at the outset, only complex state-law claims remain, and the statutory and common-law factors favor remand.

Integranet Physician Resource v. Texas Independent · filed 2019-12-11(c)

Here, as in Enochs, the statutory and common-law factors weigh against supplemental jurisdiction. ... This complexity weighs in favor of remand. A Texas state court is best positioned to address a complex array of issues relating to Texas law—especially under complex factual circumstances. ... The suits are in their infancy. No discovery. No Rule 26(f) conference. No scheduling order. ... As explained, the relevant statutory and common-law factors disfavor the district court’s maintaining jurisdiction over the state-law claims at issue in this case.

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to justify retaining state-law disability-access claims in light of fairness and comity concerns.

Rhambo v. 8572 Lee Inc · filed 2019-12-11(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state administrative-review claim raising novel or complex state-law issues, with uncertainty over the state board’s consent to removal supplying an additional compelling reason in exceptional circumstances.

Kenmore MHP LLC v. City of Kenmore · filed 2019-12-12(c)(1), (c)(4)

Accordingly, this Court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the APA claim under § 1367(c)(1). ... Further, there are exceptional circumstances which create “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction” under § 1367(c)(4). ... At this point in the litigation, removal of the case is defective. Remand of this single APA claim may well resolve this issue.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims fail to survive a motion to dismiss.

Morey v. Windsong Radiology Group · filed 2019-12-12(c)(3)

Finally, having determined the federal claims did not survive the motion to dismiss, the district court appropriately declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morey’s state law claims, Kolari v. N.Y.‐Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)), and Morey does not argues otherwise.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims.

Powrzanas v. Jones Utility and Contracting Co Inc · filed 2019-12-12(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declines to address the merits of the state law claims. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), the Court dismisses those claims, found in Counts III-VIII, without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction and to remand those claims in a removed action.

Smith v. Kennemore · filed 2019-12-12(c)(3)

District courts may properly decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. ... In the exercise of its discretion, and because no federal claims remain in the instant action, the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and will REMAND them to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee.

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

Verdiglione v. Hui · filed 2019-12-13(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 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Adelfo Cerame, Jr. v. ABC Garden Grove, LLC · filed 2019-12-13(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when its monetary relief substantially predominates over ADA injunctive relief and comity and avoidance of forum shopping supply compelling reasons in exceptional circumstances.

Theroux Jr. v. Mar-Con Products, Inc. · filed 2019-12-13(c)(2), (c)(4)

Thus, under the circumstances ... presented, the Court finds that the monetary damages sought by Plaintiff under the Unruh ... Act substantially predominate over federal injunctive relief. ... Therefore, as a matter of comity, and in deference to California’s substantial interest in ... discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court declines supplemental ... jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim and provide sworn facts about high-frequency-litigant status.

Whitaker v. Moradzadeh · filed 2019-12-16(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and hiscounsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1367(c) allows a court to require a plaintiff to justify supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim by disclosing the damages sought and facts relevant to high-frequency-litigant status.

Whitaker v. Stiglitz · filed 2019-12-16(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

A court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after the sole federal claim is abandoned when the merits of the remaining state-law claim are not clearly apparent at an early stage.

Benson v. Five Star Realty Services, Inc · filed 2019-12-16(c)(3)

Without expressing any view on the ultimate merits of Five Star’s motion to dismiss, the court can state that the viability of that claim is not clearly apparent at this very early stage of the case. Because Benson has abandoned the sole federal claim on which Five Star predicated removal, because there is no other basis for original subject matter jurisdiction, and because the court in its discretion finds that the ground asserted by Five Star for retaining jurisdiction is unpersuasive, the appropriate course is to remand the suit to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the only federal claim when no substantial litigation has occurred.

Jones v. Dolan Connly P.C. · filed 2019-12-16(c)(3)

Here, the only federal claim has been dismissed. All that remains are four state-law claims. Apart from the complaint and motions to dismiss, no substantial litigation has occurred. Under the circumstances, the Court will to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law-claims.

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

Jones v. Equian, LLC · filed 2019-12-16(c)(4)

And while the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, it declines doing so in order to avoid jury confusion.

When deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Langer v. 8455 LLC · filed 2019-12-17(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.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining municipal-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed at the pleading stage when little judicial effort has been invested, discovery has not begun, and convenience, fairness, and comity do not favor retention.

Garcia v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corporation · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)

Here, no circumstances counsel in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Garcia’s remaining municipal law claims, given the Court’s dismissal of all of Garcia’s federal claims. The Court has not invested the judicial resources necessary to resolve these non-federal claims or even determine if Garcia has pled sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case. Nor do convenience, fairness, or comity require the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Finally, dismissing the municipal-law claims now, at the motion to dismiss stage, would not cause substantial delay, because the parties have not yet engaged in discovery. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Garcia’s remaining NYCHRL claims. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Ferncliff Cemetery Association v. Town of Greenburgh, New York · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)

Having determined that the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law cause of action.

In considering whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims, a court may require disclosure of the statutory damages sought and facts establishing whether the plaintiff and counsel are high-frequency litigants.

Gonzales v. Moros Cuban Restaurant · filed 2019-12-18(c)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims. In so responding, Plaintiff is further ORDERED to: (1) identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover; and (2) provide declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if each is a “high-frequency litigant.”

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

Vasquez v. Asian Way · filed 2019-12-18(c)

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

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims to avoid unnecessarily deciding state-law questions.

Guerra v. Holt · filed 2019-12-18(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claim will be dismissed, Count III of Plaintiff’s complaint will also be dismissed to avoid unnecessarily addressing a state law question when the Court no longer has original jurisdiction over the complaint.

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

Growgenix Solutions LLC v. Roberts International Agricultural Development · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

However, having dismissed each of Plaintiffs’ claims arising under federal law, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ partnership claim, which is based entirely on state law and governed by the Utah Uniform Partnership Act, 48-1d-101, et seq. Accordingly, the court dismisses the state-law claim without prejudice.

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

Obregon v. Capital Quarries Company Inc · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

Having resolved all of Obregon’s and Waters’s federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state claims.

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

Rutherford v. JGKallins, L.P. · filed 2019-12-20(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 court considering supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim to require the plaintiff to justify its exercise and submit sworn facts concerning high-frequency-litigant status.

Whitaker v. Dar Franklin, LLC · filed 2019-12-20(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

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

Tunne v. Spears · filed 2019-12-20(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Supplemental jurisdiction may be retained over state claims sharing operative facts with remaining federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention, despite potential jury confusion from differing standards of proof.

Battle v. South Carolina Department of Corrections · filed 2019-12-20(a), (c)

The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the applicable factors support the continued exercise of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims against SCDC. These state law claims, which have been pending for nearly two years, share the same core of operative facts with the federal claims against the individual Defendants that are still before this court. The court finds that judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties are better served by the court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. While the court recognizes that the differing standards applicable to the federal and state claims in this case could potentially create confusion, “the risk of jury confusion can be reduced by judicious use of special verdict [forms] and carefully drawn instructions.” Roget v. Lucas, No. Civ. B-90-335(WWE), 1990 WL 253071, at *1 (D. Conn. Nov. 28, 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted) (concluding that potential juror confusion did not justify declining pendant jurisdiction over state claims that were related to civil rights claims under § 1983).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims when no federal claim is adequately pleaded and the balance of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favors declining jurisdiction.

Carter v. Castelo · filed 2019-12-23(c)(3)

Balancing these factors, the Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over ... Plaintiff’s state claims where Plaintiff has failed to plead a federal claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding remaining state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed when comity, convenience, fairness, and judicial economy favor remand.

K. B. v. The City of Venice, Florida · filed 2019-12-23(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” Since Plaintiff’s claims involving federal questions are due to be dismissed, and the remaining claims arise under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims (Counts III and VI). ... All four factors weigh in favor of remand.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims and provide sworn facts bearing on high-frequency litigant status.

Marquez v. Thai Gourmet By Sri Maya, LLC · filed 2019-12-26(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

In considering whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(c), a court may require a plaintiff to justify retaining Unruh Act claims in light of fairness and comity concerns about evading California’s disability-access litigation requirements.

Uriarte-Limon v. Hoon-Yin Ho · filed 2019-12-26(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any 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 justify supplemental jurisdiction over state disability-access claims in light of fairness, comity, and California’s efforts to curb abusive litigation.

Grigsby v. Karadjian · filed 2019-12-26(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court considering whether to retain an Unruh Act claim to require the plaintiff to justify supplemental jurisdiction and disclose the damages sought and facts establishing high-frequency-litigant status.

Whitaker v. Haven Ontario Properties, LLC · filed 2019-12-26(c)

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in light of fairness and comity concerns arising from California’s heightened disability-access litigation requirements.

Marsh v. Mashhour · filed 2019-12-26(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims following dismissal of the federal complaint.

Evans v. New York City Human Resources Administration · filed 2019-12-27(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits a court considering supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim to require disclosure of requested statutory damages and sworn facts concerning high-frequency litigant status.

Lopez v. Villegas · filed 2019-12-30(c)

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claim.

Doe v. Marian University · filed 2019-12-31(c)(3)

Absent some fact suggesting that the bias in Doe’s investigation occurred “on the basis of sex,” summary judgment must be granted in favor of Marian University. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

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

Hee Soon Park v. Audrey Song Lee · filed 2022-03-29(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) gives district courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even when supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Acevedo v. Euclid Retail, LLC · filed 2020-01-02(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 when a state claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances supply other compelling reasons.

Langer v. Socal Equity Holdings LLC · filed 2020-01-03(c)(2), (c)(4)

District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” ... The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for similar reasons.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims fail to state a claim for relief.

Fleurentin v. Kings County Hospital Center · filed 2020-01-03(c)(3)

Because none of the plaintiff's federal claims state a claim for relief, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claims arising under New York State Executive Law § 296 and New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction based on the circumstances of the case, the nature and governing law of the state claims, and their relationship to the federal claims.

Vasquez v. Hansen VTF Labs · filed 2020-01-08(c)

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

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

Cotton v. City of Detroit · filed 2020-01-08(c)(4)

Since the parties in this matter are nondiverse, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the plaintiff fails to state a federal claim.

Amber Bray v. Villegas · filed 2020-01-13(c)(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bray’s state law claims because Bray failed to state a federal claim.

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

Frazier v. Reyes · filed 2020-01-14(c)

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

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

Whitaker v. Peet's Coffee, Inc. · filed 2020-01-14(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’! 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 decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the complaint.

Magee v. American Express · filed 2020-01-14(c)

The Court declines, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims that Plaintiff may be asserting.

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

Strojnik Sr. v. CMP 1 Santa Ana Owner LP · filed 2020-01-15(c)

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

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

Bouyer v. Hancz · filed 2020-01-15(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) permits a district court to require a plaintiff to justify retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law accessibility claims in light of California’s filing restrictions.

Strojnik Sr. v. Interstate Hotels and Resorts Inc. · filed 2020-01-17(c)

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

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over a state constitutional claim presenting a novel private-right-of-action issue and malpractice claims that substantially predominate because they require distinct proof of liability against additional defendants.

Gray v. Bansley / Anthony / Burdo LLC · filed 2020-01-21(c)(1), (c)(2)

Specifically, the Court declines jurisdiction over the claim of violation of Connecticut Constitution, Article 1, § 8 under section 1367(c)(1). Because the Connecticut Supreme Court has not recognized a private right of action under this provision, Gray’s claim seeking relief based on its violation raises novel issues of state law that are more appropriately resolved by the state court. ... The court also declines jurisdiction over the malpractice claims under section 1367(c)(2) because they would substantially predominate over the Fourteenth Amendment claims. ... Thus, Gray’s malpractice claims substantially predominate because he must establish liability as to each of the three defendants with evidence concerning the standard of care, causation, and damages that is not relevant to the federal claim.

Section 1367(c) permits declining supplemental jurisdiction over novel and complex state-law insurance claims when judicial economy and comity favor dismissal, with parallel state proceedings and uncertain Article III standing providing additional compelling reasons.

Goodson v. Poe · filed 2020-01-23(c)(1), (c)(4)

First, the claims raise novel and complex issues of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). ... There are other “compelling reasons” for this Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), one of which being the pending state court action.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to require a plaintiff to justify retaining supplemental jurisdiction over state disability-access claims in light of fairness and comity concerns.

Frazier v. Hollywood Bakery, Inc. · filed 2020-01-27(c)

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

Under § 1367(c), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss a state-law claim when a plaintiff fails to timely or adequately respond to an order to show cause concerning that jurisdiction.

Garcia v. Market at 1010, LLC · filed 2020-01-27(c)

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).

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

Amber Machowski v. Lantern Properties, Inc. · filed 2020-02-04(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.’” ... 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.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remand them after disposing of all claims within its original jurisdiction.

BRYANT v. HARRIS COUNTY GEORGIA · filed 2020-02-05(c)(3)

Those are the only claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and those claims are remanded to the Superior Court of Harris County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

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

Vasquez v. Car Stereo Masters · filed 2020-02-06(c)

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