Bifano v. Waymart Borough, 3:16-cv-00245

Plaintiffs Joseph Bifano and Keith Rynearson, former Waymart Borough police employees, sued the Borough and former Chief Fred Glavich alleging (1) Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law violations (waste theory), (2) First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (3) defamation (later withdrawn).
The court previously dismissed several claims and dismissed Glavich as a defendant; remaining claims were the whistleblower (waste) claim against the Borough and a First Amendment retaliation § 1983 claim against the Borough.
The Borough moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs expressly declined to oppose the Borough’s summary judgment arguments as to their First Amendment retaliation claim and filed an inadequate statement of facts under the local rules.
The court treated the First Amendment claim as unopposed and granted the Borough summary judgment in part as to that federal claim.
Having disposed of the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law whistleblower claim and dismissed it without reaching the merits; procedural tolling of 30 days for the statute of limitations applies under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Borough is entitled to summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim	Bifano/Rynearson asserted they were retaliated against for protected speech (opposition to waste)	Borough argued summary judgment should be granted; plaintiffs failed to oppose on the merits	Court granted summary judgment to Borough on the First Amendment claim (claim unopposed)
Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law claim	Plaintiffs wanted to proceed with the state claim in federal court	Borough sought dismissal of federal claims and argued the court should dismiss remaining state claim after disposing of federal claim	Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state whistleblower claim without prejudice

Patel v. Meridian Health Sys., 666 Fed. Appx. 133 (3d Cir. 2016) (district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims)
Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) (factors guiding district court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction)