With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1993) at 835). A district court abuses its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, despite the dismissal of all federal claims, “where the federal claims had been dismissed at a relatively early stage and the remaining claims involved issues of state law that were unsettled.” Valencia ex. rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 306 (2d Cir.2003) (underlining added) (citing Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740, 754 (2d Cir.2001)); see also Oliveira v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 251 F.3d 56, 64 (2d Cir.2001); Seabrook v. Jacobson, 153 F.3d 70, 71-73 (2d Cir.1998). In contrast, a district court’s decision to retain state claims after dismissing all federal claims where the question arises late in the proceedings will be affirmed. See Purgess, 33 F.3d at 139 (<HOLDING>). Here, as it is recommended that summary

A: holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court
B: holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
C: holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well
D: holding district court did not abuse its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state claims where four of five federal claims were dismissed on the eve of trial final federal claim was dismissed after the close of all the evidence the parties had spent years preparing for trial in federal court jury had heard evidence for several days and was ready to begin deliberations and it would have been wasteful to subject case to another full trial before a different tribunal
D.