Otto v. Heckler

Oct. 14, 1986.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1986-10-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he district court, of course, has the discretion to determine whether its investment of judicial energy justifies retention of jurisdiction.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Little v. University of California Medical Center, Schneider v. TRW, Inc.

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Rosado v. Wyman · Wren v. Sletten Construction Company

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-10-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2016

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Before MERRILL, TANG and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

¶1

Prior report: 781 F.2d 754.ORDER AMENDING OPINION

¶2

The opinion issued January 28, 1986 is amended as follows:

¶3

Delete the last two sentences and substitute:

¶4

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.