N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

DW IGHT R

ATC LIFF, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITY OF RED LODGE, DEPARTM ENT OF POLIC E, a

Politic a l Subdivision of the State of M onta

na ; AL STUB ER , a

R e d Lodge Polic e Offic e r,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35941 D.C .No. 1:12-c v-00079- SPW

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 2, 2017 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , TALLM AN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. This c a se is be fore us for the se c ond tim e . La st y e ar, we re v e rse d the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of Offic e r Al Stube r’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, holding tha

t 

# F IL ED
AUG 07 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).Offic e r Stube r wa s e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity a ga inst Dwight R

atc liff’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la im s for e xc e ssive forc e and a purporte dly

unre a sona

ble Te rry stop. 1 Ratc liff v . C

ity of Re d Lodge

, De p’t of Polic e , 650 F. App’ x 484, 486 (9th C ir. 2016). On re m and, the distric t c ourt gra nte d the re ne we d m otions for
sum m ary judgm e nt file d by Offic e r Stube r an d the C ity of R e d Lodge Polic e De pa rtm e nt (the “ C ity ” ). This a ppe a l followe d. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. R a tc liff a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n, on re m and, it e xe rc ise d supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r his sta te la w c la im s. B e fore re a c hing this que stion, howe v e r, we m

ust first de c ide whe the r R atc liff wa ive d this a rgum e nt by fa iling, until now, to ch a lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s e xe rc ise of supple m e nta l jurisdic tion. 1. Unlike othe r ba se s of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion, thee xe rc ise of supple m e nta l jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1367 re m a ins subje c t to “ our norm a l rule s of a ppe lla te proc e dure ,” inc luding thewa ive r doc trine
. Se e K ohle r v . Inte rTe l Te c h. , 244 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th C ir. 2001) (c ita tion omitte d). Thus, a

pa rty
wa ive s a n “ obje c tion to the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tiona ry e xe rc ise of supple m e nta l jurisdic tion by fa i ling to ra i se it in thedistric t c o urt.” Id. He re , R atc liff c o nte nds

1 Se e Te rry v . Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 2that

he ra ise d the re quisiteobje c tion in his opposition brief to Offic e r Stube r’ s
re ne we d m otion. B ut the portion of the brie f on whic h R atc l iff re lie s only sta te s: [R a tc liff] a c knowle dge s tha t with theNinth C irc u it ruling a nd the m anne r in whic h Judge M olloy

fra m e d the § 1983 c l a im

a ga inst thec ity , jurisdic tion ba se d on fe de ra l que stion m ay not e xist. If the

C ourt finds that it no longe r has original jurisdiction and de c line s supple me ntal jurisdic t ion, [Ratc liff] re que sts the C ourt dismiss the

C omplaint w ithout pre

judic e , as has be e n the prac tic e in this Distric t. (Em pha s is a dde d.) This pa ssa ge is pla inly not a n obje c tion to the

distric t c ourt’ s
e xe rc ise of supple m e nta l jurisdic tion, but ra the r c o nve y s R atc l iff’ s pre fe re n c e for a dism issa l without pre

judic e in the

e v e n t the c ourt de c line s to e xe rc ise suc h jurisdic tion. Ac c ordingly , we hold tha t R at c liff wa i ve d his right to obje c t to the distric t c o urt’ s e x e rc ise of supple m e nta l jurisdic tion. 2. Eve n a ssum ing tha t R atc liff pre s e rve d his obje c tion, his a ppe a l still fa ils. W h ile we c onside r de novo theque s tion of whe t he r the distric t c ourt had subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion, “ [w] e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to e x e rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion for a n a buse of disc re tion.” Sate

y v . J P Morgan C

hase& C o. , 521 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita tions omitte d). A distric t c o urt “ m ay

de c line to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r a
c la im . . . if . . . the

distric t c ourt ha s dism isse d a ll c la im s ove r whic h it ha s origina l jurisdic tion.” 28 U.S.C . § 1367(c )(3). Notwithsta n ding thepe rm issive la

ngua ge in

3§ 1367, R a tc liff c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

whe n it c h ose to e xe rc i se this jurisdic tion. As a n initia l m atte r, R a tc liff is inc orre c t tha t, at the tim e the distric t c ourt
e xe rc ise d supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r R atc liff’ s sta te la wc l a im s, it ha d a lre a dy dism isse d a ll of his fe de ra l c la i m s. This c a se is a na logous to Munge r v . C

ity of Glasgow Polic e De

p’t , 227 F.3d 1082 (9th C ir. 2000). The re , whe n fa c e d with the
sam e argum e nt now pursue d by R atc liff, we e xpla ine d tha t “ [a ] fte r hav ing gra

nte d qua lifie d im

m unity to the offic e rs, the distric t c ourt re ta ine d jurisdic t ion ove r the § 1983 c la i m s a ga inst thepolic e de pa rtm e nts.” Id. at 1088 n.4. “ The c ourt gra nte d
sum m ary judgm e nt a s to the se latte r fe de ra l c la im s at thesametime that it gra nte d
sum m ary judgm e nt on m ost of thesta te la w ne glige n c e c la im s – in theAugust 10, 1998 orde r.” Id. (e m

p ha sis a dde d). “ Thus, thec ourt wa s not e xe rc ising jurisdic tion ove r m ost sta te la w c la im s a fte r having dispose d of the fe de ra l c la im s.” Id. The sa

m e is true he re . On June 21, 2016, on re m and, the distric t c o urt dism isse d R a tc liff’ s fe d e ra l c la i m s a g a inst Offic e r Stube r. At tha t tim e , it ha d not y e t dism isse d R a tc liff’ s § 1983 c la im a ga inst theC ity . Inste a d, it did not dism iss that c la im until Oc tobe r 20, 2016, in the sam e orde r in whic h it dism isse d R atc liff’ s
re m a ining sta

te la w c la im s.

4In any e ve nt, “ a fe de ra l distric t c ourt with power to he ar state la w c l a im s ha s disc re tion to ke e p, or to de c line to ke e p, the m unde r the c o nditions se t out in § 1367(c ) . . . .” Ac ri v . Varian Assoc s., Inc

. , 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba nc ). This disc re t ion should be inform e d by

the va l ue s of “ e c onom

y , fa irne ss,
and c om ity .” Munge r , 227 F.3d a t 1088 n.4 (quoting Ac ri , 114 F.3d a t 1001). The distric t c o urt, noting tha

t the c a se ha d

be e n pe nding in fe de ra l c ourt for ove r four y e ars a nd invoking c onside ra tions of judic ia l e c onom y , did not a

b use its disc re tion in e x e rc ising supplem e n ta l jurisdic tion ove r R atc liff’ s sta te la w c la im s. The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is AFFIRM E D.

5