of way were ballast and that this ballast was put on the right of way by the railroad. Thus, the ballast retained its nature as personalty and could be conveyed to AVLT by the railroad and Plaintiffs have not shown an issue of fact in support of their federal claim regarding the ballast. Thus, the only remaining issue to be resolved is the ownership of the property itself, which is an issue that remains only under the state law doctrine of abandonment. Il.Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims The District Court concluded that because Plaintiffs had not raised an issue of fact regarding a federal claim, its original jurisdiction was extinguished, and the case should be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster, 45 F.3d 780, 788 (1995)(<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that the District Court
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 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 holding that federal district court retains substantial discretion when deciding whether to retain jurisdiction over pendent state claims after the linchpin federal claims are dismissed holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well