questions of state law, the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims upon dismissal of the claims over which the Court had original jurisdiction. “Under §§ 1367(c) and 1441(c), a court is not required to remand state law claims when the only federal claim has been dismissed. Instead, the district court maintains discretion to either remand the state law claims or keep them in federal court.” Lindsey v. Dillard’s, Inc., 306 F.3d 596, 599 (8th Cir.2002). Having granted Krambeck’s motion to dismiss her federal claims, the Court now considers the balance of factors informing the exercise of its discretion to remand. The district court’s discretion is substantial and is reviewed deferentially. See Deniz v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 285 F.3d 142, 150 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (citing Serapion v. Martinez, 119 F.3d 982,
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 if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims 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