principles, the federal court’s dismissal without prejudice of Southern’s state law pendent claims is not a judgment on the merits and, therefore, not res judicata. In construing the federal court requirements for res judicata, this court has held that [A] district judge’s decision to dismiss pendent state law claims ... would not be understood by the federal courts as a decision on the merits of those state claims. The federal court would have been competent to decide them only if the plaintiff had asked the court to do so and the court, in its discretion, agreed to assume jurisdiction over them. Andujar v. National Prop. & Cas. Underwriters, 659 So.2d 1214, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). See also Management Investors v. United Mine Workers of America, 610 F.2d 384 (6th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court’s ruling in Semtek
holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata