Opinion ID: 3214415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relators' State-Law Claims

Text: Finally, Relators claim that the district court erred when it dismissed their pendant state-law claims with prejudice. As a general principle, the unfavorable disposition of a plaintiff's federal claims at the early stages of a suit . . . will trigger the dismissal without prejudice of any supplemental state-law claims. Rodriguez v. Doral Mortg. Corp., 57 F.3d 1168, 1177 (1st Cir. 1995). However, this praxis is not compelled by a lack of judicial power. . . . In an appropriate situation, a federal court may retain jurisdiction over state-law claims notwithstanding the early demise of all foundational federal claims. Id. Relators alleged violations of a number of state false claims acts. In its decision, the district court dismissed the federal-law claims but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Novartis, 91 F. Supp. 3d at 112. The court recognized that, when federal claims are dismissed at such an early stage, any supplemental state-law claims should be dismissed without prejudice. Id. (quoting - 23 - Rossi v. Gemma, 489 F.3d 26, 39 (1st Cir. 2007)). Consequently, the court stated that Relators' claims for relief under the individual states' qui tam statutes are dismissed, albeit without prejudice. Id. (emphasis added). In its conclusion, however, the district court inexplicably reversed course and dismissed Relators' state-law claims with prejudice. Id. Relators filed a Request for Clarification, and the Court responded, without further explanation, that it had intended to dismiss the state-law claims with prejudice as well. Defendants contend that the court dismissed the statelaw claims for the same reason it dismissed the federal-law claims: failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court's conclusion to its opinion reflects this reading: [T]he claims alleged in Garcia's and Kelly's complaints, pursuant to . . . the individual states' equivalent qui tam provisions, lack the particularity required under Rule 9(b) for pleading fraud. Id. But this conclusion simply cannot be reconciled with the court's earlier decision in its opinion declining jurisdiction over the state-law claims. A court cannot dismiss a claim on the merits if it has declined to exercise jurisdiction over the claim at all. That is not to say that the - 24 - court would have lacked the power to dismiss the claims with prejudice if it had retained jurisdiction. See Rodriguez, 57 F.3d at 1177. But here the court declined jurisdiction and then purported to dismiss the claims with prejudice. That does not wash. Because the district court expressly relinquished jurisdiction over Relators' state-law claims, we think it appropriate to vacate the district court's decision to dismiss the state-law claims with prejudice and remand so that the court may dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.