in the form of an admission or as a response to a discovery request. Id. In this case, the plaintiffs’ specification of the multiple different values of their claims (based upon the resolution of numerous variables) in their stipulation with PPG will be considered binding. The Askins and Geer decisions (and the other apparently contradictory decisions cited above) may be reconcilable after considering which decisions reflect the impact of the burden of production (or the burden of moving forward) in situations like the one presently before the court which must be placed on the defendant, and which decisions address the plaintiffs ultimate retention of the burden of persuading the court that it has jurisdiction over his or her claims. See Cardinal Chem., 508 U.S. at 98, 113 S.Ct. 1967 (<HOLDING>); Cappuccio v. Prime Capital Funding LLC, 649
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 court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract holding that a federal court must order arbitration once it is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made and has not been honored holding that the court may presume it has jurisdiction over a case once the plaintiffs initial burden of establishing jurisdiction has been satisfied holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction