court had our asking us to argue about whether this court had jurisdiction over new york state cutting the answer is yes the first place that can be found is in twenty eight u s c section twelve ninety one which simply states that this over all final decisions of a district court and interpretation of that can be found in cola law or he o l a are first is new york presbyterian hospital for a fifty five f and from the second circuit two thousand and six there are there were twelve claims brought in the district court most of them were state claims they were few federal claims the district court dismissed all of them the plaintiff appellant appealed only three of them only state court claims and the second circuit took the case and said in one flat statement i quote we have jurisdiction under twenty eight u s c section twelve ninety one for only the state court claims now the kaleri court also said some interesting things that i was not aware of before i did the research on this  court determined that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to entertain supplemental jurisdiction once the federal collect cake claims had been dismissed right but once the federal claims were out even though the state claims from smith to the same time it is considered an abuse of discretion to retain jurisdiction once the federal claims are gone the state claim should be dismissed without prejudice kaleri said under u s c section thirteen sixty seven gives the court supplemental jurisdiction but under subsection c the court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in any of four circumstances one if the claim raises an awful or complex issue of state law if the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court had original jurisdiction and in this case there were fourteen state claims that only three federal claims in from all of this is that it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss your state claims with prejudice correct and i did not argue that until now it is not in my earlier papers because i didn't come across them so i read two ninety nine second circuit two thousand and three in that case the dick district court dismissed federal and state claims no party briefed to the issue which i just spoke of the second circuit so was spontaneous ad oral argument raised the claim to quote from n c at oral argument this court questioned the propriety of the federal courts resolution of the unsettled questions in new york law asking why it was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion when plaintiffs had abandoned their federal claims in advance of the sitter's some summary judgment motion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law quaintness the here and the federal court had jurisdiction over the federal climb up to the moment up to and including the moment of entry of judgment correct and had jurisdiction of about the federal and state claims and adjudicated that it has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and that's a kind of jurisdiction that's a kind of jurisdiction but under these cases if the i believe that it was an abuse of discretion for the lower court to entertain supplemental jurisdiction even though it dismissed certain state claims at the same moment that is based federal claims the cases say that the federal claims are gone supplemental jurisdiction should not be maintained in what what the cases call the usual case this qualifies as the usual case unusual cases  things like where there are implications of federal preemption or whether there are ways to approach a few down here well ok until i find the usual cases are situations where discoveries not proceeded where we are not close to trial where there are no outstanding issues to dismiss even under the glottal factors several of the factors were pleaded so to indicate that my client was an employee and  having done that it sent it back for the district court in the first instance to consider the application of those factors to that case yes ok and further that the court order no i'm saying that it's premature even though you could say that it's the same posture because of what you just explained but treat discovery  premature and this also represents a novel issue of new york law even though many federal cases especially have said that the f l s a in the new york labor law are construed coextensive plea there are eleven guidelines as opposed to the clot case which laid out seven of if there are eleven points that the new york state department of labor has issued to determine specifically in internship situations whether the intern was an employee or not and every one of those has to be met and there has been in order for the person and it applies to new york labor law  right and this is a stable place and there has been no state law case post a lot to determine if the new york labor law standard good morning if it pleases the court my name is matthew grow like grow up which i'll never do and i represent the babe you defendants that's a south point nursing home and joseph bend in the administrator of the nursing home regarding whether or not this court has the power to hear this appeal i refer back to the united mine workers vs gives case i have a labor background so i like labor cases and the two part test there is whether or not there is power to hear the state claim and then whether or not it's proper to exercise that power to hear the state court claim or in this case the appeal and i believe that the federal court has the power to hear this claim both below and here because the state and federal claims are derived from a common nucleus of operative fact and that the plaintiff would board ordinarily be expected to try both claims in one form so there is discretion there is power to hear the case as there was at the lower court and on the second test this court as well as the lower court has power to exercise and the jurisdiction because there are considerations of judicial economy and convenience and fairness  which supports we have power now let's turn to the merits what do you say to your adversaries argument that the glass factors which has been the focus i think of virtually all the papers don't control this because there's a new york labor law standard which is different that is not true the district court judge correctly held that the f l s a in the new york label or claims are subject to the same standard because the definitions of employee under both statutes are nearly identical and so maybe nearly identical but they're completely unhelpful i'm citing here that may be identical but they're quite  helpful because it just says an employee is somebody who's working for an employer well that's correct and that's why we go into the glatt factors to determine whether or not this person was an employee or not  their cases but now that glatt is the lot within this circuit and i would argue that the record yeah well the other cases involving state law standards published by the new york state department of labor are pre collapse yes so under sense glatt that is the will of the lord for both the state and the federal claims the state court i do not believe honestly that there is a decision addressing that to this point but i the plaintiff chose to form we can say that to the extent we see both types of cases the standard decision because that that is an interesting point of view and i do respect that the plaintiff however chose to form he chose the federal court he chose to bring supplemental claims under thirteen sixty seven and he has now is now backpedaling because he has a decision against him under both the fair labor standards act and the new york label law and in the interest and all of the other basis for not requiring my client to try the same issues or to deal with the same issues in state court after having had to brief not only this issue but the dismissal of sixteen other causes of action only to have to reprieve those in state court now is abusive and it's outrageous the plaintiff chose the form he gets the results that are form i argue that there is risk to the current collateral stoppel effect if you want to try to bring this claim in state court and i'm glad to make those arguments but i will ask for sanctions and attorney's fees in connection with any such an inappropriate course of action this is been going on taking that fact is true there are seven glass factors that is one factor and judge feuerstein correctly held that away in a balancing of all the factors unequivocally to stammen straits that this was a bona fide internship in which she received educational vocational benefits and in a real world setting and the work which she did if it or you know if any was outweighed by any benefits that she received and the district court correctly held that it's the undisputed purpose of the interned ship was to fulfill and i cannot academic requirement for her master's a social work degree and so the economic realities she was in a registered degree program for at long island university so this is not a case where she was not a student interned she was registered excuse me a i'm sorry a little nervous wanted to that's been lost in the end of the shuffle here she was an intern who was displacing other employees she was a student who was registered in a practicum course and field in the field and this was a required course i know the district court pointed that out because that was alleged in the complaint so i just wanted to make sure the court was aware that this was not an internship situation this is a registered this was a student who was required to complete those hours but i believe that difference is very important because in the companion case in the way in case the court took great pains to go through each and every plaintiff in that case and how their internship focused on a bonafide educational purpose so i do believe that that's a distinction here that's been lost in translation but may i first address the question much i would like to answer the clerk of the court's question in the affirmative the question is can the court of appeals hear the appeal and as much as it is based soley on a claim over which the district court had no independent jurisdiction i answer in the affirmative and i rely principly on three cases the recent cohen versus postal holdings case from this court i rely also on the ben case and  y is controlling in the summer or actually not even the summer on october twelfth this court ruled in the chad going postal holdings case  that the default rule is that federal courts should not decide related state court claims unless there is good reason for doing so and i point out your honour's that the good reason here to do so is that plat established that in such cases that involve overtime wages that courts analyze the state and the federal standard in the very same way and this leads me to the ben case which i believe this is a case that judge sac pretty presided on this was dalton ben versus the city of new york and the court ruled in that case that ben state law claims are analytically i tentacle to his federal that today so ben though which is instructive is that ben did not argue on this appeal that summary judgment should have been denied because the defendant failed to show that they were entitled to summary summary judgment using a instructive because lundy had both state claims which raised novel issues and lundy also had a very similar claim under glass which was analyzed under the new york law and the standard that is applied to federal law so in lundie they had to claim se had claims that were distinguished because they did raise novel issues in the court in leonti remanded those makes perfect sense when you  salient features to the latin else and the third which was added in the amended decision it wasn't in the first flat but it was in glad to says pacifically this is the third salient feature third acknowledges that the in turn employer relationship should not be analyzed in the same manner as the standard employer employee relationship because the interned and tears into the relationship with the expectation of receiving educational or vocational benefits that are not necessarily expected with all forms of employment so we're cardless of whether you're looking at the new york labor law or the fair labor standards act this is an employment this is not employment situation this is a student who entered into a course with the expectation of learning something whether she be little's or b moans what she actually the take away at this in turn ship sight is of no moment because i know my i actually have more time than i thought because i wanted to point out in the is this large i'm running over ok so then let me end this way let me end because i thought i had two minutes left i'm so sorry but in weighing the companion case which i talked about earlier the companion case to glass specifically says this while the internships involved varying amounts of rote work and could have been more ideally structured to maximize their educational potential which i believe the plaintiff has argued all along that she didn't get much out of it given the the totality of the undisputed evidence no reasonable juror could conclude that the plaintiffs were employees under a governing law the court therefore can scan clues that under the fair labor standards act and new york law plaintiffs were in turns rather than employees as a matter of law in roles in in programs but most just presented a letter that they were going to get two or three credits this is in turn plus this is what glatt envision a bonafide educational program these are students who were enrolled in a degree program unlike latin footman they were not in the old and three programs and that's probably why their case was remanded back to the district court to apply the proper standards to see if there was an educational component so there was no question here thank you just a couple small points you asked mr gro whether i had argued that the new york state labor law is different from federal law anyplace and he said no but i have in papers submitted just monday though gave us something what did you get right i forgot it wasn't you in the new york state case where the eleven cause of action me so you don't have these papers but the defense debate motions to dismiss and i oppose them just on monday this is a state court yet new york state bar all the claims have been refiled all the state claims that were dismissed without prejudiced have been refiled in new york state court you have anything else and yeah ok i actually we were talking about in quad the internship relationship analyzed differently and i just wanted to point out that the new york state eleven point labor law guidelines specifically are weight requires for interns in pro business in in for profit businesses i've got the  all look that up and the other main point is that the lower court focused on what the internship promised not what the internship delivered and l r u argued that some some of these things are class actions are you saying you have to look individually and want each an experience of each individual person and the subjective feeling of each individual person as to whether they got anything out of the experience not a subjective feeling but the glock or did you call that a fact specific encourage and the employment status in general is considered a fact specific inquiry so there is a fair amount of pacific looking into this is the the actual particular situation that is involved in any others or should we instead really be focused on the program itself which in this instance is a i believe you should focus on what he does exactly occurred not on the purpose of the internship program or the size of the program but what the student actually received it was their educational benefit was that educational benefit to minimalists as are the allegations in this claim or doesn't does it not matter if it's associated with a school is it automatically considered