was unavailable in the state court.” Id. at 72. HSBC also cites several cases where federal courts have applied res judicata in this context. However, in each of these cases the state court upheld a dismissal of the plaintiffs claim. See, e.g., Day, 656 F.Supp.2d 331; Kremer, 456 U.S. 461, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262. Because the respective state courts granted the plaintiffs no relief, there could be no issue as to the ability of the state court to grant full relief; they are, accordingly, immaterial. 2. Subject Matter Jurisdiction HSBC argues that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over an action for attorney’s fees only. Section 2000e — 5(f)(3), the statutory provision granting subject matter jurisdiction to federal district courts over actions bro h Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), Lewis v. Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 3:97
holding that because plaintiff no longer has available administrative remedies his action must be dismissed with prejudice recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a  1983 action holding that state court judgment affirming an administrative decision did not bar a subsequent federal action for additional relief because of national policy that title vii remedies be available to supplement state remedies for employment discrimination holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that federal law governs remedies available under title ix