This language creates a mandatory prohibited period — the duration of the district court action for the same claim — during which the Claims Court cannot have jurisdiction over any action initiated by plaintiff for the claim. Keene, 508 U.S. at 209, 113 S.Ct. 2035; UNR Indus., 962 F.2d at 1021 (“By the plain language of section 1500, if the same claim is pending in another court while the plaintiff files his complaint in legislative history leave “no doubt that at least a time-of-fíling rule applie[s]” such that jurisdiction under § 1500 is dependent on the state of things when the action is brought, and cannot be rescued by subsequent action of either party or by resolution of the co-pending litigation. See Keene, 508 U.S. at 207-09, 113 S.Ct. 2035; UNR Indus., 962 F.2d at 1021-22 (<HOLDING>); British Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89
holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding in a patent case that when the plaintiff brought the suit in federal district court it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues embraced in the suit including those pertaining to the counterclaim of the defendants holding it readily apparent that any suit filed in the court of claims when the same claim was pending in another court  had to be dismissed  regardless of intervening actions in the conflicting case emphases added 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 holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed