Court involve itself in inherently local issues? Although neither counsel for the parties nor I have found any cases resolving this issue, I find it unnecessary to do so in this case because the parties have now stipulated that the Rule 106 claim should be remanded. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and cannot act in the absence of constitutional and statutory authority. United States v. Hardage, 58 F.3d 569, 574 (10th Cir.1995). Because it is at least questionable whether I may conduct a hearing pursuant to state procedural rules to review an action taken by a local governmental body or officer, I accept the parties’ stipulation and order that this claim be remanded. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., - U.S. -, -, 116, S.Ct. 1712, 1720-21, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Qualified Immunity of Individual Defendants
recognizing that federal courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction where warranted by regard for federalstate relations recognizing that enhancement for results obtained may be warranted 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 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