When can a court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction?

A court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction primarily when a state law claim predominate over the federal claims involved in the case. This principle is established by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which allows courts to refuse to hear supplemental claims when they substantially overshadow the federal question or when the federal claims are dismissed at an early stage of the proceedings. If the state law claims are more complex, substantial, or dominate the litigation such that it would be more appropriate for them to be heard in state court, the court may choose to dismiss the supplemental claims for reasons of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.

In contrast to the other possibilities, such as the original claim being still active, an agreement among all parties to dismiss, or the relative strength of the federal law claim, these scenarios do not inherently provide the grounds for a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. A court’s decision to maintain or dismiss a case is usually more influenced by the nature and significance of the claims rather than these procedural circumstances.