Edward F. Cross, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the Aerospace Corp., Defendant-appellee, 122 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Edward F. Cross appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant, The Aerospace Corp., in his action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the California Fair Housing and Employment Act ("FEHA"), Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12900-12996. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cross contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his state claim for violation of FEHA once he abandoned his ADEA claim. This contention lacks merit.

"The district court's decision whether to adjudicate pendent state claims following final disposition of all federal claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir. 1990). The district court's decision to retain pendent jurisdiction is made by weighing factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. See id. at 715.

Here, Cross's state FEHA and ADEA claims arose from a common nucleus of operative facts: Cross's termination. Once the defendant filed a summary judgment motion as to the state and federal claims, judicial economy and efficiency were served by adjudicating both claims in a single proceeding, particularly because the ADEA claim was not abandoned until Cross filed opposition to the motion. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by adjudicating Cross's pendent state claim. See id.; see also Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that judicial economy and efficiency well served by retaining jurisdiction over state claims arising from common nucleus of operative facts after federal claim was dismissed)

AFFIRMED.