not “undertake any action to misappropr ld require a successful trademark infringement claim. Even accepting all of the facts plead in Plaintiffs complaint as true, Plaintiff cannot successfully state a claim for trademark infringement, and therefore Plaintiffs breach of contract claim fails, too. The motion to dismiss is granted in favor of Defendant Hensley on this claim, and it is dismissed. S) The State Law Claims Plaintiffs remaining claims — tortious interference and misappropriation of trade secrets — are brought under state common law, with supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiffs federal law claims, the Court dismisses the remaining state law claims. See, e.g., Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 84 F.3d 797, 802-03 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.
holding that when original jurisdiction claims are dismissed before trial the district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state claims unless there is an affirmative justification for doing so holding that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that after all federal claims had been dismissed if the district court does decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction these state claims shall be remanded to state court rather than dismissed because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court