Zollingerv.Bridgerland Applied Technology College

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central DivisionAug 6, 2007
Case No.: 1:05-CV-00145 (D. Utah Aug. 6, 2007)

Case No.: 1:05-CV-00145.

August 6, 2007


DEE BENSON, District Judge

Plaintiff moves the Court for a new trial, or, in the alternative, for relief from the judgment entered May 25, 2007 dismissing her claims in their entirety. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings March 30, 2007 and Plaintiff, due to a calendaring error, failed to oppose the motion. On May 25, 2007, the Court adopted the reasoning in Defendants' brief and dismissed Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff now requests that the Court amend its prior order to dismiss only her federal claims with prejudice and to dismiss her state claims without prejudice so that she may pursue them in state court.

A district court "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). For reasons of comity it is preferable for district courts to dismiss pendent state law claims without prejudice "to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law." United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 282 U.S. 715, 716 (1966). Accordingly, "if federal claims are dismissed before trial, leaving only issues of state law, `the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.'" Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc., 315 F.3d 1245, 1264, n. 18 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

In recognition of these principles, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for relief from the judgment of May 25, 2007, dismisses (again) Plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice, and dismisses Plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). It is so ordered.