Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Depo. at 249-50. Even if I were permitted to consider this statement, it still would not establish that the scoring list was a pretext for discrimination. Since Longoria’s claims fail on the merits, injunctive relief is not appropriate. Accordingly, I must grant summary judgment on the official capacity claims. C. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION Since I have dismissed all claims under which Longoria can claim federal jurisdiction, I shall exercise my discretion to dismiss the remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). These claims will be dismissed without prejudice to Longoria’s right to pursue them in the courts of New Jersey. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); Tully v. Mott Supermarkets, 540 F.2d 187, 196 (3d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>); Kadetsky v. Egg Harbor Township Bd. of Educ., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that only exceptional circumstances on the level of the invocation of a significant federal policy or severe prejudice or unfairness to the parties should be considered as a basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction when state law predominates (B) holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims (C) holding the court should only apply the doctrine narrowly and only under exceptional circumstances (D) holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim (E) holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court
Output (English): holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim