should continue to exercise jurisdiction over the dispute and should dispose of the parties’ state law claims as well. It is true that the case has been pending for some time, but plaintiffs have also been well aware from the outset of these consolidated cases that defendants did not believe that plaintiffs could establish the state action needed to support the § 1983 claim and that, therefore, their state claims were at risk of being dismissed. See Ruling on Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 33]. In that regard as well, the Court would note that plaintiffs could have avoided the supplemental jurisdiction issue entirely by filing both their state law claims and § 1983 claim in state court in the first instance. See Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 147, 108 S.Ct. 2302, 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988) (<HOLDING>). After careful consideration of the relevant
holding that a federal court improperly dismissed suit on abstention grounds where there was no concurrent jurisdiction over the federal claims holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action