Reference no: EM133813642

Question

Jon, a citizen of Indiana, files suit against a union, also a citizen of Indiana, alleging that the union conducted a secondary boycott against him after Jon crossed the picket line and performed work ordinarily conducted by union workers while the union workers were on strike. Jon alleges that this secondary boycott violates both the federal Labor Management Relations Act and Indiana law. One year before the scheduled trial date, the district court dismisses Jon's federal law claim under the Labor Management Relations Act on the ground that Jon failed to state a claim under the Act. The district court then dismissed Jon's state law claims as well. Which of the options provides the best rationale for the district court's decision to dismiss Jon's state law claims? (Tip: Refer back to the language of USC 28 Section 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute.) - The district court had dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction before trial. - The district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because the state and federal law claims did not form part of the same case or controversy. - The district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because district court's lack supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of a plaintiff. - The district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims because the state law claims raised novel and complex issues of Indiana law.