Francisco Cazares v. Homeq Servicing;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO CAZARES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOMEQ SERVICING; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17539
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01577-JAM-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Cazares appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his
action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to
retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Harrell v. 20th Century Ins.
FILED
NOV 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17539 2
Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir. 1991), and to dismiss without leave to amend,
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental
jurisdiction over Cazares’s state law claims after they had been briefed by the
parties and analyzed by the district court. See Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d
986, 994-95 (9th Cir. 1991) (no abuse of discretion in retaining supplemental
jurisdiction where sending the case to another court would cause a duplication of
effort).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend where amendment would be futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627
F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).
Cazares’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --