Castro

MEMORANDUM **

The supplemental jurisdiction statute provides that the district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law ... [or] (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c). In this case both of these conditions were met.

The state law claims against the Fashion 21 defendants—the only claims that remained in the ease after the federal claims against the other defendants were dismissed—involve novel and difficult questions under California law. Apparently there is no California case that directly addresses the issues. A major statute upon which the appellants rely is recently enacted legislation that the California courts have not construed. Here, as in Holly D. v. California Institute of Technology, 339 F.3d 1158 , 1181 n. 28 (9th Cir.2003), “[t]hese claims require multiple decisions on important, unsettled, and policy-laden issues of California law.” As we there stated, “[w]hen all federal claims are eliminated before trial, retaining jurisdiction only over complex questions of state law becomes, in…