Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)

Citation
San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)
Parent Document
San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)
Effective Date
1998-11-06

Other Sections in This Document (64)

Full Text

748 chars
Reviewing this statute, this court distinguished the first three provisions from the fourth provision — exceptional circumstances. Thus, we held that a district court “must articulate why the circumstances of this case are exceptional.... ” Executive Software, 24 F.3d at 1557. This court did not discuss, nor do we require, any similar explanation for a district court’s reasons when the district court acts under any of the first three provisions. Unlike the “exceptional circumstances” provision, the first three provisions codify most of the applications already recognized by courts. See id. at 1560. Thus, the *479district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to provide stated reasons for its dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2).