Director [of FEMA]” alleging wrongful full or partial disallowance of claims for SFIP coverage of losses due to flood damage. Id. Accordingly, the district court believed that it could only possess subject matter jurisdiction over the Remaining Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the supplemental jurisdiction statute. Having disposed of all claims in the case over which the district court believed that it possessed “original jurisdiction” (i.e., the breach of contract claims against Seibels Bruce and SCIC), id., the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Remaining Claims pursuant to § 1367(a) and, thus, ordered such claims remanded to state court. See Hinson v. Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In its cross-appeal, SCIC argues the district
holding the district court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its order granting the defendants motion to dismiss notwithstanding the fact that the district court had remanded the remaining pendent state claims to state court pursuant to 28 usc  1367c 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 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 holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims holding a district courts power to remand pendent state claims to state court is inherent in statutory authorization to decline supplemental jurisdiction under  1367c