Unpublished Disposition, 846 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1988)

No. 87-6543.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before GOODWIN and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges, and ALFREDO C. MARQUEZ,^***  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^** 

Plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint in its entirety. They allege the court erred by dismissing without prejudice their state law claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and spoliation of evidence. We affirm.

Plaintiffs only opposed defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to three claims: malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and spoliation of evidence. The district court decided that because these claims and their defenses involved emerging questions of state law, it would exercise it discretion to dismiss these pendent claims without prejudice and leave the issues raised by these claims to state courts.

We review for an abuse of discretion the dismissal of pendent state claims. See Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 1985).

It is usually appropriate and generally preferred to dismiss pendent state claims when federal claims are dismissed before trial. McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d 1310, 1317 (9th Cir. 1987); Jones v. County Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 1984). The only federal claim the plaintiffs presented was a RICO claim. Pursuant to a stipulation, the plaintiffs dismissed this claim against the Cutler defendants. Plaintiffs did not oppose defendants Salerno and Dassoff's motion to dismiss the RICO claim and it was dismissed with the dismissal of the complaint. Because no federal claim remained, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs' pendent state law claims. Schultz, 759 F.2d at 718.

AFFIRMED.