The appellants do not dispute that the construction site is “on the property of the Municipality.” Appellee Off. Br. 3. There cannot be a plausible constitutional claim that the Municipality cannot secure its own property. IV. Because there is no substantial constitutional claim, we also conclude that there is no federal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims, as the remaining state law claims were only argued to “be allowed to proceed ... [under] supplemental jurisdiction.” Appellant Br. 33. “As a general matter, a court will decline supplemental jurisdiction if the underlying [federal] claims are dismissed before trial.” 13D Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.3, at 429 (3d ed. 2007). Cas 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v.
recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that the fifth and fourteenth amendments do not entitle a person to a federal remedy for every breach of contract by a state thus unless every breach of every public contract is to be actionable as a violation of constitutional rights it is necessary to distinguish between mere contract rights and constitutional property rights internal citations and quotation marks omitted recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract