With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". informed the HR Department about Ceinos’ alleged harassment, despite knowing the mechanisms available within Ex-Lax. Moreover, according to Acevedo, he was unaware that the maintenance and engineering incidents that occurred at the plant were attributed to him. Insofar as the gist of his opposition to Ex-Lax’s motion is that he was never advised that said incidents could lead to his dismissal, Acevedo is now barred from claiming that he was harassed by the same conduct he claims was never effectively brought to his attention. As such, Plaintiffs’ harassment claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Supplemental law claims Having dismissed Plaintiffs’ federal law claims against Ex-Lax, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are also dismissed. See Newman v. Burgin, 930 F.2d 955, 963 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion In light of the foregoing,

A: holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit
B: recognizing a distinction between the power of a federal court to hear statelaw claims and the discretionary exercise of that power
C: holding that no substantial question of federal law was required to be answered to determine the plaintiffs statelaw legal malpractice negligence and breach of contract claims
D: holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit  and the district court has considerable authority whether or not to exercise this power in light of such considerations as judicial economy convenience fairness to litigants and eomity
A.