Task: Text Completion
Input (English): the relief provided by Congress under Title VII is equitable in nature, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), and specific procedural limitations are mandated by the Act, such as trial to the bench and expeditious disposition, Congress implicitly intended to deny pendent jurisdiction over state legal claims. To date, only one appellate court has passed on this issue. In Jones v. Intermountain Power Projects, 794 F.2d 546 (10th Cir.1986), the Tenth Circuit held that Congress did not intend to negate the exercise of jurisdiction over non-Title VII claims when it enacted Title VII. The court noted that an examination of the statute “reveals nothing to suggest an intent to negate pendent jurisdiction.” Id. at 552. Cf., Bouchet v. National Urban League, 730 F.2d 799, 805-06 & n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The appellants rely on the district court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the concerns cited by the district courts supra justify discretionary denial of pendent jurisdiction but not deciding whether such denial is mandated by congress (B) holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself (C) holding that the federal court could not consider under  2254d1 a rationale offered by the state for the trial courts denial of the petitioners motion for selfrepresentation when that rationale would have constituted a discretionary denial of the motion (D) holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter (E) holding that congress intended for district courts to review only the secretarys denial
Output (English): (A)