FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 10, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12693 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 1 0 1 9 - CV- J EM D W A I N I N G R A M , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S C H O O L B O A R D O F M I A M I - D A D E C O U N T Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 10, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D w ai n Ing ram appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d ec l i ne supp l em ent al2

j ur i s di c t i on ove rhi s s t a t e l a w c l a i m , a l l e gi ng a ge di s c r i m i na t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the F l ori da C i vi l R i gh t s A ctof 19 92 , ar gu i ng thatthe courtabused i t s di sc re t i on w hen it d is m is s e d th e c a s e . W e c o n c lu d e , h o w e v e r , th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s w ith in its d is c r e tio n to d is m is s th e s ta te la w c la im a f te rth e f e d e r a l c la im s h a db e e n r e s o lv e d . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D I ngr a m br oughts ui ti n f e de r a l c ourta l l e gi ng r a c e a nd a ge di s c r i m i na t i on b a s e d o n s ta te a n d f

e d e r a l la w . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te ds u m m a ryju d g m e n t a s to the fe dera l cl ai m s. A l m ostsi x m on ths l at er , the sc ho ol bo ar d n ot i fi ed the courtthat i t s f eder al qu es t i on ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on ended w hen the T i t l e V II cl ai m w as di s m i s s e d. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d the r e m a i ni ng s t a t e l a w c l a i m , i nt i m a t i ng th a t th e c la im c o u ldb e b r o u g h t in s ta te c o u rt. C itin g C a rn e g ie - M e llo n U n iv e r s ityv . C o h ill, 4 8 4 U .S . 3 4 3 , 3 5 3 , 1 0 8 S . C t. 61 4, 62 0– 21 (198 8), Ingram ar gu es thatthe courti m prop er l y det erm i ned that re t ai ni ng j uri sdi ct i on w ou l d h ave been i napp ropri at e and thatdi sm i ss i ng the ca se , rath er th an rem an d i n g i tt o st at e co u rt , w o u l dh av e b een ap p ro p ri at e. In g ram al so a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe f

a c ttha tadi s m i s s a l on the e ve of tr i a l w oul d m e a n tha ta l l of hi s w ork w oul d ha ve t o be dupl i c a t e d.3 I I . DI S CUS S I ON Pr o b l e ms c o n c e rn i n g s u b j e c tma tt e rj u r i s d i c t i o n “ ma yb e r a i s e da ta n yt i me bythe pa rt i e s a nd s houl d be r a i s e d s uas pont e bythe c ourt . ” L uc e r o v. T r os c h, 121 F . 3d 591, 598 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o de c l i ne s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. I d. ( “ A s apr a c t i c a l m a tt e r , the d is tr ic t c o u rt is in th e b e s t p o s itio n to w e ig h th e c o m p e tin g in te r e s ts s e t f o rth in § 1367( c ) a nd [ U ni t e d M i ne W orke r s v. G i bbs , 383 U . S . 715, 86 S . C t . 1130 (196 6)] i n d ec i di ng w hether i ti s app ropri at e t o exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on . ”) .

“ I n a nyc i vi l a c t i on of

w hi c h the di s tr i c tc ourt s ha ve or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on, [they a l so] have supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov eral l other c l ai m s thatar e s o rel at ed t o c l a i m s i n the a c t i on w i thi n s uc h or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on tha tthe yf orm pa rtof

the s a m e c a s e orc ontr ove r s yunde rA rt i c l e I I I of the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 7 (a). T h u s, a co u rth eari n g a co m p l ai n tu n d er T i t l e V II m i g h tal so hearcl ai m s und era s t at e c i vi l ri gh t s s t atut e. H ow ever , “ [t ] he di stri ctcourt s m ay d e c lin e to e x e r c is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rac la im . . . if . . . ( 1 ) th e c la im ra i se s ano vel or com pl ex i ss ue of S t at e l aw , [or] . . . (3) the di stri ctcourthas d is m is s e d a ll c la im s o v e rw h ic h it h a s o r ig in a l ju r is d ic tio n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 ( c ) . P ri or t o the enactm entof § 1 36 7, the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rthel d that4

ade c i s i on t o e xe r c i s e orde c l i ne s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on l a yi n “ c ons i de r a t i ons of j udi c i a l e c onom y , c onve ni e nc e [ , ] f a i rne s s t o l i t i ga nt s , ” a nd c om i ty . G i bbs , 383 U . S . a t726, 86 S . C t . a t1139. W e ha ve he l d tha tthe s e c ons i de r a t i ons s urvi ve d the c odi f i c a t i on of

§ 1367. P a l m e rv. H os p. A uth. of R a ndol ph C ounty , 22 F . 3d 1559, 1569 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . A s ar e s ul t , i n ac a s e w he r e § 1367( a ) j us t i f i e d t a ki ng j uri sdi ct i on ov era s t at e c l ai m bu ton e of the adverse el em ent s of § 13 67 (c ) w as pres ent , the courtcoul d exerci se supp l em ent alj uri sdi ct i on ov erthatcl ai m , af t er c o n s id e r in g th e G ib b s f a c to r s . I d . B e g in n in g o u rr e v ie w o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n , w e n o te th a t “[ s ]ta te co u rt s, n o tfed eral co u rt s, sh o u l d b e th e fi n al arb i t ers o f st at e l aw . ” B ag g ettv . F i rst N at ’ l B ank o f G ai nesvi l l e, 11 7 F . 3d 13 42 , 13 53 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W here , as here , ac ourtha s di s m i s s e d a l l f e de r a l c l a i m s f

r om ac a s e , the r e i s ave rys tr ong a r gum e nt f ordi s m i s s a l , e s pe c i a l l yw he r e the f e de r a l c l a i m s a r e di s m i s s e d pr i ort o tr i a l . I d. ( c i t i n g G i b b s , 3 8 3 U . S. a t7 2 6 , 8 6 S. Ct . a t1 1 3 9 ) . I n f a c t , “ i f th e f e d e r a l c l a i ms a r e di s m i s s e d pr i ort o tr i a l , G i bbs s tr ongl ye nc our a ge s ore ve n r e qui r e s di s m i s s a l of s t a t e c l a i m s . ” M e r ge ns v. D r e y f oos , 166 F . 3d 1114, 1119 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A no ther i m po rt antconsi dera t i on , w hi ch the di stri ctcourtno t ed i n i t s order di sm i ss i ng the ca se , i s the runn i ng of a s t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on . S ee L . A . D raper5

& S o n v . W h e e lab r a to r - F ry e , I n c ., 7 3 5 F .2 d4 1 4 , 4 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . I f th e s ta te c l a i m ha s be c om e t i m e - ba rr e d dur i ng the pe nde nc yof the f e de r a l a c t i on the n the c ourts houl d e xe r c i s e s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on de s pi t e the di s m i s s a l of a l l of the f e d e r a l c la im s . E u b a n k s v . G e rw e n , 4 0 F .3 d1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . W hen a courtdeci des nott o exerci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on un der § 1 36 7(c) (3) because onl y s t at e c l ai m s r em ai n, the prop erac t i on i s adi sm i ss al w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e s o th a t th e c o m p la in in g p a rtym a yp u r s u e th e c la im in s ta te c o u rt. C ro sb y v . P au l k , 1 8 7 F . 3 d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 5 2 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ If h e d eci d es t o d i sm i ss the s e s t a t e - l a w c l a i m s , the n the ys houl d be di s m i s s e d w i thoutpr e j udi c e s o tha tthe c la im s m a yb e r e f

ile d in th e ap p r o p r ia te s ta te c o u rt.” ) . I ngr a m c i t e s C ohi l l f

orthe pr opos i t i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha ve re m anded the ca se t o st at e c ou rtra ther than d i sm i ss i ng i t . C oh i l l i s i napp osi t e. S ee C oh i l l , 48 4 U . S . at35 1, 10 8 S . C t . at61 9 (“ [B ] ec ause the pl ai nt i ff i n G i bb s f

i l ed h i s su i ti n fed eral co u rt , rem an d w as n o tan o p t i o n i n th atcase. ”). O n l y i n th o se ca se s w here an ac t i on ori gi nat ed i n st at e c ou rtand w as l at erre m ov ed t o federa l courtshou l d a fe dera l courtre m and the ca se back t o the st at e c ou rt . S ee i d. ; cf . C ook e x r e l . E s t a t e of

T e s s i e rv. S he r i f

f of M onr oe C ounty , F l a . , 402 F . 3d 1092, 1123 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “ B e c aus e thi s c a s e w a s or i gi na l l yf i l e d i n s t a t e c ourta nd re m ov ed t o federa l courtpu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 44 1, i f the di stri ctcourtdecl i nes6

t o c ont i nue t o e xe r c i s e s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on, [ the ] r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s houl d be r e m a n d e d to s ta te c o u rt.” ) . I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc ourte xpr e s s l ya ddr e s s e d the G i bbs c ons i de r a t i ons an d ca re fu ll y e x am in ed th e s tatu s o f th e s tate statu te o f lim it atio n s o n In g ra m ’s c la im b e f

o r e d is m is s in g h is r e m a in in g s ta te la w c la im . I n a d d itio n , b e c au s e th is a c tio n d idn o t o r ig in a te in s ta te c o u rt it w a s im p o s s ib le f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to r e m a nd i tt o as t a t e c ourt . A s s uc h, ne i the rthe c ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o de c l i ne s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n n o rth e s u b s e q u e n t d is m is s a l o f I n g r a m ’s s ta te la w c la im w e r e ab u s e s o f

d is c r e tio n . H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave i nd i ca t ed thatthe di sm i ss al w as m a d e w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e , in k e e p in g w ith its p u rp o s e o f a llo w in g as ta te c o u rt to a d d r e s s th e r e m a in in g is s u e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s ile n c e o n th is p o in t c o u ldle a dto th e c o n c l u s i o n th a tth e o r d e rd i s mi s s e dth e c a s e w i th p r e j u d i c e . Se e Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 41 (b). B ec ause thatsi l ence coul d i nt er fe re w i th the pu rpose of a l l ow i ng st at e c ou rt re sol ut i on of thi s i ss ue, w e c on strue the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al as a di sm i ss al w i tho utprej ud i ce . I I I . CONCL US I ON Ingram ’ s f

eder al l aw cl ai m s w er e di sm i ss ed by the di stri ctcourt , w hi ch su b se q u en tl y d ism isse d h is state law claim s b ro u g h t u n d erth e c o u rt’s7

s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onduc t e d the pr ope ra na l y s i s a nd w as w i thi n i t s di sc re t i on t o d i sm i ss . W e A F F I R M the di s tr i c tc ourt , c ons trui ng the cl ai m t o b e di sm i ss ed w i tho utprej ud i ce .