decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" over supplemental
state law claims if the court has dismissed all claims over
which it has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Therefore, it is within this court's discretion to proceed with
plaintiffs' state law claims or dismiss them. In this case, the
court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience,
fairness and comity are not served by this court's retention of
jurisdiction. See Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 172,
118 S.Ct. 523 (outlining factors).
First, judicial economy is not served by this court's
retention of jurisdiction. At this point, the burden of the
state law claims would be the same for a federal as for a state
court, and there would be no substantial duplication of effort
if the state law claims were tried in state court. See Wright
v. Associated Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir.
1994) (holding that the district court should have relinquished
jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims were
dismissed and there was very little federal judicial investment
in the state law claims).
Second, convenience is not served by this court's retention of
jurisdiction. The state law claims are not patently frivolous,
nor is it absolutely clear to this court how the supplemental
state law claims will be decided. See Van Harken v. City of
Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346, 1354 (7th Cir. 1997) (reaffirming the
"no brainer" exception to the general rule that federal courts
should relinquish jurisdiction of state law claims); Brazinski
v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 6 F.3d 1176, 1182 (7th Cir.
1993) (holding that retention of a state law claim is
appropriate when the correct disposition of the claim is "so
clear as a matter of state law that it could be determined
without further trial proceedings and without entanglement with
any difficult issues of state law. . . .").
Finally, fairness and comity are not served by this court's
retention of jurisdiction. Under § 1367(d), the period of
limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a) "shall
be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days
after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer
tolling period." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). Thus, dismissal of the
state law claims on jurisdictional grounds will not preclude
plaintiffs from pursuing this matter in state court. Olde
Disc., Inc. v. Parker, No. 97 C 5746, 1998 WL 901673, at *4
(N.D.Ill.Dec. 21, 1998). Further, no res judicata effect
attaches to the claims the court dismisses for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Follkie v. City of Chicago, No. 97 C 154,
1997 WL 527304, at *6 n. 7 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 19, 1997).
In sum, judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity do
not compel this court to retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
state law claims. This case belongs in state court. Therefore,
this court exercises its discretion in dismissing without
prejudice plaintiffs' supplemental state law claims, Counts II
and III. See Standard Bank & Trust Co. v. Vill. of Orland
Hills, 891 F. Supp. 446, 452 (N.D.Ill. 1995) (dismissing federal
due process claim and relinquishing jurisdiction over remaining
state law claims in zoning action). Plaintiffs are free to file
these claims in state court. The court denies as moot
defendants' motion to dismiss Counts II and III on the merits.
For the foregoing reasons, the court: (1) grants in part and
denies in part defendants' motions in limine and (2) grants in
part and denies in part defendants' motion for summary judgment
as follows. The court grants defendants' motion for summary
judgment on Count I of plaintiffs' complaint. On its own motion,
the court dismisses Counts II and III of plaintiffs' complaint
without prejudice. The
court denies as moot defendants' motion for summary judgment on
Counts II and III of plaintiffs' complaint. As to Count I of
plaintiffs' complaint, final judgment is entered in favor of
defendants Advanced Equities, Inc., Lee Jack Pressman,
Communications Infrastructure Development Corporation, WD
Holdings Corp., Digital Network, Inc., Centers Corporation, and
Telecom Capital Group, and against plaintiffs Ronald R. and