Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 337 (9th Cir. 1986)
802 F.2d 337
US-DOC-21132679
locator
Case details
Bluebook Citation
Otto v. Heckler, 802 F.2d 337 (9th Cir. 1986)
Full caption
Mari OTTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secy., Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant, Howard Jacobson, Defendant-Appellee.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
Oct. 14, 1986
No. 84-6563.
Oct. 14, 1986.
Before MERRILL, TANG and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
The opinion issued January 28, 1986 is amended as follows:
Delete the last two sentences and substitute:
Retention of jurisdiction over the pendent state claims is a matter for the district court’s discretion. Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 403-05, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 1213-14, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970). The usual rule is that state claims should be dismissed if the federal claims are dismissed before trial. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); Jason v. Fonda, 698 F.2d 966, 967 (9th Cir.1982); Wren v. Sletten Construction Co., 654 F.2d 529, 536 (9th Cir.1981). The district court, of course, has the discretion to determine whether its investment of judicial energy justifies retention of jurisdiction, Rosado, 397 U.S. at 403, 90 S.Ct. at 1213, or if it should more properly dismiss the claims without prejudice.