Opinion ID: 222925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exercise of Supplemental Jurisdiction To Dismiss the State Law Claims with Prejudice

Text: For the same reasons as apply to the federal claims, we affirm the court's initial dismissal of the state law claims, but vacate the court's denial of the postjudgment motion. We construe the postjudgment motion as seeking leave to amend the complaint in ways that relate not only to Williams's federal claims, but also to her state law claims. On remand, the court should consider whether Williams's proposed amendments would cure the deficiency in the pleading of the state law claims or otherwise alter its decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to dismiss the state law claims with prejudice. [4] Accordingly, we vacate so much of the court's judgment as dismissed the state law claims with prejudice.