Biddle v. Fred Meyer Stores

Good Law
44 F. App'x 257
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 15, 2002No. 01-36084; D.C. No. CV-01-00400-HOCalifornia533 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Catherine L. Biddle appeals the district court’s dismissal of her amended complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”), the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891 , 899 (9th Cir.1994); Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1360 (9th Cir. 1990). We review for abuse of discretion the court’s decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Smiths Food & Drug Corp. and Kroger Co. for lack of personal jurisdiction because Biddle failed to demonstrate that they have sufficient minimum contacts in Oregon. See Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Machinery Co., Inc., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.1990). She points to no evidence on appeal showing that her claims arose…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.