Rodriguez v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
This text of 323 F. App'x 617 (Rodriguez v. Ralphs Grocery Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Felix C. Rodriguez and Kenneth Ntim appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their federal and state law disability discrimination claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego, 506 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Appellants do not challenge the district court’s bases for dismissing their claims, but only the dismissal of their state law claims with prejudice.
We vacate the judgment to the extent it dismisses the state law claims with prejudice, and remand for the sole purpose of dismissing those claims without prejudice. See Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 805-07 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that if the federal claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court has no discretion to retain the supplemental claims for adjudication, and must dismiss the state law claims without prejudice).
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
323 F. App'x 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-ralphs-grocery-co-ca9-2009.