also indicates an intention to consider reviving the federal claims upon remand. This leaves the defendant.to the plaintiffs caprice in re-asserting, at some later date, federal claims that the defendant has been prepared to litigate now in this forum. It would also leave open the possibility that the defendant would have to remove this action to this Court a second time, resulting in a repetitious waste of resources and time on the part of the parties and both the state and federal courts. Due to such concerns over preservation of judicial and parties’ resources and fairness to the defendant, other courts have concluded that leave to amend a complaint may be granted on the condition that the eliminated federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. See Addamax Corp., 149 F.R.D. at 5-6 (<HOLDING>). In re QMect, Inc., 349 B.R. at 626 (ruling
holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court recognizing that one of those conditions for a district judge to grant leave to amend the complaint may properly be that claims contained in the original complaint but not included in the amended complaint be considered dismissed with prejudice  holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint