FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOV 10, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 12 58 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 9- 00 17 3- CV-RLV-4 BAYSHORE FORD TRUCKS SALES, INC., HEINTZEL MAN’S TRUCK CENTER, INC., LJL TRUCK CENTER, INC., PEACH STATE FORD TRUCK SALES, INC., VALLEYFORD TRUCK SALES, INC., In di vi du al ly andas R ep res en ta ti ve s fo r a Cl as s o f Si m il ari ly Situ at edEnt it ie s, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ees , W ESTGATE CLASS, In te rv en orPla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us FORD MOTOR COM PANY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m ber 1 0, 2 00 8)Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d DUBI NA, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: The di stric t co urt d is m is se d thi s ca se forlac k o f juri sd ic ti on on th e g ro un d th atou r de ci si on in Pin ta nd o v . Mia m i-Da de Hou si ng Agen cy , 50 1 F .3d12 41 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ), m an da te d t he di sm is sa l. Ap pe ll an t ch al le ng es th e co urt’s d eci si on , arg ui ng th atPin ta nd o i s i napp os it e. W e ag ree t ha t i t i s. InPin tand o, t he pl ai nt iff

in vo ke d t he di st ric t co urt’s fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on , 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 31 an d 1 34 3, b y see ki ng rel ie f un de r Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , andth e co urt’s s up pl em en ta l ju ris di ct io n, 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 67 , by se ek in g re li ef fo r vi ol at io ns of s ta te law. Aft er the de fen dantm ov edfor su m m ary jud gm en t, the pl ai nt iff m ov edth e co urt fo r le av e to am en d h is co m pl ai nt . The co urt g ran te d h is m ot io n, an d h e fi le d a n am en de d c om pl ai nt whi chde le te d t he Tit le VII cl ai m an d re as se rte d t he st at e la w cla im s. Th e co urt gr an te d t he de fen da ntsu m m ary jud gm en t o n t he st at e law cla im s, an d t he pl ai nt iff ap pe al ed . W e h el d t ha t t he am en de d c om pl ai ntde pr iv edth e d is tri ctco urt o f supp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n; pl ai nt iff’s vo lu nt ary ab an do nm en t o f th e Tit le VII cl ai m op erat edto di ve stth e co urt o f it s fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti onan d wi th itth e co urt’s s up pl em en ta l ju ris di ct io n t o l it ig at e th e st at e la w cla im s. Inth e cas e atha nd , andas we ob se rv edin In r e Baysh or e Fo rdTruc k S al es , 2In c., “ [a]t th e ti m e th e la w su itwas fi le d, t he [di st ric t] cou rt h adsubjec t m at te r

juri sd ic ti on ba se d o n t he [pl ai nt iff s’] fed eral st atut ory

cla im s.” 4 71 F.3d12 33 , 12 41 n.1 6. Aft er the co urt i nv ol un ta ril y di sm is se d p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s u nd er the Aut om ob il e Deal ers ’ Day in Co urt Act , th e fac t t ha t p la in ti ffs , inth ei r am en de d co m pl ai nt , vo lu nt ari ly del et edth e cl ai m s b ro ug htun de r th e Ro bi ns on -Pat m anAct, di d n otpre cl ud e th e co urt fr om co nt in ui ng to ex erci se it s s up pl em en ta l ju ris di ct io n ov er p la in ti ffs ’ st at e la w cla im s. Id . W e se e n o d iff

eren ce i n t he in st an t s cen ari o t ha n asce na rio in whi ch th e pl ai nt iff’s com

pl ai ntco nt ai ns on e fed eral cla im an d o ne st at e la w cla im

withi n t he co urt’s s up pl em en ta l ju ris di ct io n, an d t he co urt d is m is se s t he fed eral cla im un de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ), (c), o r 56 an d t he n d eci de s, i n t he ex erci se of t he di sc ret io n § 13 67 affo rd s i t, t o l it ig at e th e st at e la w cla im to jud gm en t. We cou ld no t s ay th atth e co urt l os t i ts subjec t m atte r juri sd ic ti onon ce i t d is m is se d t he fed eral cla im . Take t he sce na rio on e st ep furth er an d s up po se th atth e co urt, af te r an no un ci ng th atitwas re ta in in g ju ris di ct io n, al lo ws t he pl ai nt iff to am en d i ts co m pl ai ntto res ta te th e st at e la w cla im . W ou ldth is de st ro y th e co urt’s juri sd ic ti on ? W e th in k n ot . Thatis , ineffe ct , whatoc cu rredhe re –whatwe ob se rv edin In r e Baysh or e Fo rdTruc k S al es , Inc . – p la in ti ffs am en de d t he ir co m pl ai nt , reas se rti ng th ei r st at e la w cla im s, af te r th e co urt d is m is se d 3in vo lu nt ari ly one of the ir f ed eral st atut ory

cla im s. If t he di stric t co urt i s co rrec t – th atitlo stjuri sd ic ti on on ce p la in ti ffs am en de d t he ir c om pl ai ntto res ta te th ei r st at e la w cla im s –th enth is co urt, i n In re Baysh or e Fo rdTruc k S al es , Inc ., su rel y m is se d t he m ark ; i t s ho ul d h av e v acat edth e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er en joi ni ng W es tg at e Fo rdTruc k S al es , Inc . fro m pro se cu ti ng th e Ohi o c la ss act io n, an d in st ru ct edth e d is tri ctco urt t o d is m is s t he cas e fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. Th is co urt was ful ly aware of

th e fac t t ha t, atth e ti m e th e cas e cam e b efo re i t o n app eal , th e on ly clai m s s ti ll pe nd in g b efo re the di st ric t co urt wer e p la in ti ffs ’ br each of co nt ractcla im s; y et , itpro ceed edto en te rta in , andad jud ic at e, th e ap pe al on th e m eri ts . The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly exer ci se d i ts supp le m en ta l ju ris di ct io n a fte r in vo lu nt ari ly dis m is si ng pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s u nd er the Aut om ob il e Deal ers ’ Day in Co urt Act . The fac t t ha t p la in ti ffs am en de d c om pl ai ntdi d n otco nt ai n the ir Ro bi ns on -Pat m anAct cl ai m s d idno t o us t t he co urt o f supp le m en ta l juris di ct io n. The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s v acat edan d t he cas e is rem an de d fo r furth er pr oc eed in gs . VACATED an d REMANDED.

4