* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has deter mined that this

opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-30519

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

LOUISIANA ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS,

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, by and through the New

Orleans Aviation Board, incorrectly identified

by plaintiff as New Orleans Aviation Board,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-1338"J”)

December 10, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant City of New Orleans, by and through the New Orleans

Aviation Board, appeals the district court’s grant of Plaintiff

Louisiana Associated General Cont ractors’ motion to remand this

action to Louisiana state court. We affirm.-2- I

Plaintiff Louisiana Associated General Contractors (“LAGC”)

f iled suit against the New Orleans Aviation Board (“NOAB”) in

Louisiana state court. LAGC initially alleged that NOAB’s

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program, the Louisiana

statute under which it was allegedly established, and the

application of the DBE program and the statute to a specific public

works project violate the Louisiana Constitution, two Loui siana

st atutes, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, LAGC alleged

that NOAB discriminates a gainst non-minorities and men “in the

apportionment of public works, public works contracts, and public

works subcontracts.”

N OAB removed the suit to federal district court based on

federal question jurisdiction. LAGC then amended its complaint to

delete the federal claims; LAGC simultaneously filed a motion to

remand the case to state court. The district court granted LAGC’s

motion to remand. NOAB appeals.

II

We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s

decision to remand a case to state court. H ook v. Morrison Milling

Co. , 38 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 1994).

A district court has discretion t o remand pendent state law

claims after the plaintiff has dropped the federal cause of action-3-

on which removal was originally based. J ones v. Houston Indep.

Sch. Dist.

, 979 F.2d 1004, 1007 (5th Cir. 1992). The discretion to

remand enables district courts to deal with cases involving pendent

claims in the manner that best serves the principles of economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the pe ndent

jurisdiction doctrine. Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill , 484 U.S.

343, 357, 108 S. Ct. 614, 623, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988).

A district court can con sider whether the plaintiff has

engaged in any manipulative tactics when it decides whether to

remand a case. I d.

, 108 S. Ct. at 622. If the plaintiff has

attempted to ma nipulate the forum, the court should take this

behavior into account in determining whether the balance of factors

to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine supports

a remand in the case. Id. , 108 S. Ct. at 622-23.

In this case, the district court observed that “[t]he fact

that [LAGC’s] amendment deleting the federal claims wa s for the

p urpose of securing remand weighs against the motion.” However,

the court nonetheless concluded that th e suit should be remanded

because the state law claims predominated over the federal claims

in the initial complaint and because the state law claims are

“novel and complex.”

NOAB argues that the district court abused its discretion in

finding that the state law claims in this case predominate and are

“novel and complex.” We find the district court’s decision well-4-

within its discretion and in accordance with applicable law. See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (supplemental jurisdiction statute).

NOAB also contends that the district court abused its

discretion in remanding the action because LAGC apparently amended

its complaint to manipulate the forum in whic h the suit would be

tried. However, the district court’s order reflects that it

addressed LAGC’s alleged tactic in a manne r consistent with

Carnegie-Mellon

, i.e., the court noted that forum manipulation

weighed against the motion, and considered it in light of the other

circumstances of the case. We do not find that the district court

abused its discretion in determining that the circumstances of this

case favored remand.

AFFIRMED.