George Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc.
114 F.3d 999
9th Cir.
1997
Check Treatment

*3 O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, that, emphasize Having said we dissenting: actually exercising deciding and discretion decline, retain, supplemental whether to dissent from the any claims when over state law opinion I fear it crucial because overlooks (c) implicated factor in subdivision is is a comity. issues of and federalism duty- responsibility The health continued and success of our seriously. Supreme bound to take The system federal demands that the branches of stated, we have often re Court has and government proper the national a maintain peated, that “in the case in which all usual respect independent for the functions of the federal-law are eliminated before separate judicial Our branch should States. point balance of factors ... will toward the particularly impacts be sensitive the of its declining over the systems. legal decisions fed- on state While Carnegie-Mel remaining state-law claims.” speak ques- eral on be lon, 7,108 at 350 n. n. in tions of law certain at 730 discretion to n. While that, a be mindful absent should belong strong justification, state law claims triggered by is the all, in After National state courts. “the Gov- presence of one conditions in if the their ernment will fare best States and 1367(c), by it is the Gibbs values informed their perform institutions are left free to fairness, convenience, economy, and comi “of separate ways.” separate functions Allen, See, 846; ty.” e.g., F.3d at Execu Harris, Younger N. States Dist. tive Am. United (1971). 746, 750, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 importance Given the of these values in our Court has instructed system, the proper federal administration of justice by a is far better served deliberative all claims have should be rare when federal by than decision default.3 Mine been before trial. United dismissed 726-27, might pre- how No matter much we 1130, 1139-40, 16 a reasoned consideration of ferred 1367(e) (as cases), particularly perti- is factors this case all The Gibbs admonition application a district court’s trader to affect the law of the circuit on If invoked, asking any the limited either a other than initiative, Reyn- today: making sure that claims or own we will one deal with of state on its impos- expect given olds and are not misunderstood continue to that reasons Allen sponte to obligation an to decline decision any of its Software, conduct whenever 24 F.3d at 1561. isdiction. token, implicated. By opinion we do not intend nent where a federal court without di should consider sua here whether to exer- versity jurisdiction being Likewise, decide wholly exclusively and claims based state when the district court fails to address law, having the federal cause of dismissed whether a claim should be in the federal summary judgment. action State courts all, appellate courts at court should raise claims, proper fora for those are the question on its own. stay fray out of the proper respect authority of the States jump is a reason for them to in- unless there recognition and a of our own limitations re- is, judicial economy, unless “values of quires this conclusion. convenience, fairness, comity” would be corollary, certainly As a we should *4 thereby. served See Univ. effectively make unreviewable the district court’s decision to retain absent a objection. preserved “While is clear that majority essentially ignores what the commits the Gibbs determination of whether long required of federal Court pendent to the sound exercising supplemental jurisdiction- discretion of the district equally prudential that the court consider the clear we must review the district court’s Camegie-Mellon. discussed Gibbs and determination for an abuse of that discre- my principles comity and federalism tion.” Schneider demand consideration of these factors each (9th Cir.1991) (O’Scannlain, J., dissent- brought time a district court confronts claims ing). jurisdiction. under its The fed- I fear that opinion may in- Union, eral nature of our and the commands increasing litigants cite numbers of to file Camegie-Mellon, of Gibbs and matter no their state claims in (along federal court less when the for whatever self-serv- claim) marginal hope with the reasons, ing object fail to to the exercise of opponents object. will not The result- jurisdiction. ing already burden on the overloaded dock- Notwithstanding courts, say ets our federal district noth- America, North Inc. v. United States Dist. heightened tension in federal-state Cir.1994), 24 F.3d 1545 I do not relations, high price pay too think changes analysis, bright today. line rule we create way approach or the dissent. And I am not Congress alone in belief that endorsed

and codified Gibbs’s first factor in 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3). Borough W. of Mifflin

Lancaster, (3d Cir.1995)

(“Section 1367(c) ... simply was intended Jerry JONES, Jr., codify preexisting pendent Bartlett Petitioner-Appellant, progeny”) enunciated Gibbs and its (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 6802, 6875); U.S.C.C.A.N. Brazinski v. Amo- WOOD, Respondent-Appellee. Tana Co., co Petroleum Additives J.) (§ (Posner, 1367(c)(3) codify is intended to rather than alter exist- United States Court of ing judge-made principles); Moore’s Federal Practice Sd 106.66[1]. Argued and Submitted Because sensitive issues of federalism are Decided June involved, strong and because there are rea- discourage sons to supple- when one of condi- 1367(c) met, §of

tions