claims. However, the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the federal courts from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). State courts are not similarly barred. Arguably the principles of judicial economy and convenience are better served by trying all of the claims together in a single forum. Certainly duplicative litigation is undesirable. Where novel issues of state law are presented, though, considerations of judicial economy are not determinative. “[A] federal court should be reluctant to retain pendent jurisdiction over a question for which state jurisprudence gives inadequate guidance.” Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 776 (D.C.Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). See also Zahnow v. Great Lakes Distributing
holding that the district court erred in retaining jurisdiction over pendent state law claims raising novel issues of state law on the basis of judicial economy holding that district court appropriately retained pendent jurisdiction over state claims where it had invested time and resources in the case holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law 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