second and third claims for relief is GRANTED, and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 1 . As to Foley's claims, I address these separately below. 2 . Even if 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) were implicated in this case, I do not agree with plaintiffs that the statute allows the court to remand both federal and state law claims over which state law predominates. Plaintiffs cited several cases in support of this argument. Three of the cases, Alexander by Alexander v. Goldome Credit Corp., 772 F.Supp. 1217 (M.D.Ala. 1991); Holland v. World Omni Leasing, 764 F.Supp. 1442, 1444 (N.D.Ala.1991) and Martin v. Drummond Coal Co., 756 F.Supp. 524, 526 (N.D.Ala.1991), have been at least impliedly overruled by the Eleventh Circuit. See Reneau v. Oakwood Mobile Homes, 952 F.Supp. 724, 727 (N.D.Ala.1997) (<HOLDING>). Another case, Moore v. DeBiase, 766 F.Supp.
holding that  3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and tenday appeal period applies citing united states v petty 82 f3d 809 810 8th cir1996 and united states v ono 72 f3d 101 10203 9th cir1995 holding that contractor waived right to sue city by failing to comply with notice provisions in the contract that were preconditions to litigation against the city holding that a city could conclude that mobile vendors have a deleterious effect on the economy of the city and could accordingly substantially curtail their operation if not totally ban them holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract holding that these three cases were overruled by in re city of mobile 75 f3d 605 11th cir1996