22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4ea,MEMORANDUM Francisco Cazares appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir.1991), and to dismiss without leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Cazares’s state law claims after they had been briefed by the parties and analyzed by the district court. See Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 994-95 (9th Cir.1991) (no abuse of discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction where sending the case to another court would cause a duplication of effort). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend where amendment would be futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010). Cazares’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T521,

MEMORANDUM

Francisco Cazares appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 203, 205 (9th Cir.1991), and to dismiss without leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Cazares’s state law claims after they had been briefed by the parties and analyzed by the district court. See Schneider v. TRW, Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 994-95 (9th Cir.1991) (no abuse of discretion in retaining supplemental jurisdiction where sending the case to another court would cause a duplication of effort).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend where amendment would be futile. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010).

Cazares’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.