With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Lanham Act claim”). It may well be that Sun Trading has valid' claims, but it does not have valid claims under the Lanham Act. As Judge Sotomayor has stated, “The Lanham Act ... should not be used as a remedy for a bruised ego. The Lanham Act should not be used to transform a breach of contract dispute into a federal cause of action.” Stratta, 1997 WL 282250, at *5. 2. State Law Claims The Court need not consider Sun Trading’s state law claims. In dismissing the Lanham Act claims, the Court has the discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); Reese Publ’g Co. v. Hampton Int’l Communications, Inc., 620 F.2d 7, 13 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction

A: holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well
B: holding that when a lanham act claim is dismissable upon motion state law claims should be dismissed without prejudice
C: holding that a claim dismissed as malicious under the ifp statute should be with prejudice
D: holding that when state law claims are dismissed without prejudice a plaintiff is free to assert them in the appropriate state forum
B.