Opinion ID: 179333
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Pendent Claims

Text: Moore articulates his appellate issue in the following way: “After dismissing all of the Appellant’s Federal claims . . . the District Court err[ed] in not remanding the remaining State negligence claims to the original State Court from which they were removed.” [Appellant’s Br. 3.] We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of pendent state claims. DobbsWeinstein v. Vanderbilt Univ., 185 F.3d 542, 546 (6th Cir. 1999). When a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any pendent claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The court may, in its sound discretion, either dismiss the claims without prejudice, see Dobbs-Weinstein, 185 F.3d at 546, or remand them, see Long v. Bando Mfg. of Am., Inc., 201 F.3d 754, 761 (6th Cir. 2000). Though Moore acknowledges that § 1367(c) authorized the district court to dismiss his pendent claims, he contends that the court abused its discretion here because he could not refile the -2- No. 09-5940 Moore v. Coffee Cnty. dismissed claims in state court due to untimeliness. Moore failed, however, to voice this concern at any point before the court dismissed his claims. He could have moved the court to remand before judgment, but he did not. He could have responded to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, noting his interest in remand, but he did not. Or he could have filed a separate case in state court, but he did not. No abuse of discretion results from a court’s failing to anticipate an ancillary—and unvoiced—consequence of its legitimate dismissal.