Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District
| Decision Date | 21 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1444,81-1444 |
| Citation | 457 U.S. 594,102 S.Ct. 2612,73 L.Ed.2d 245 |
| Parties | Johann SCHMIDT, and Leland Pollard, etc., Petitioners, v. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
California Ed.Code Ann. § 39640 (West Supp.1982) requires school districts to award any contracts for work involving more than $12,000 to the "lowest responsible bidder." For projects over $100,000, the Oakland School District requires that to be considered responsible, general contractors must use minority-owned businesses for at least 25 percent of the dollar amount of the total bid. Petitioners submitted the low bid for an advertised project but were disqualified under the School District plan as not being responsible. They brought this action claiming damages and asserting that the affirmative-action plan violated not only the Federal Constitution but also state law. The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of the District Court upholding the plan on constitutional grounds. 662 F.2d 550 (1981). Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that under one of its prior decisions, the plan at issue might be invalid under state law, it declined to decide the state-law question since it was a sen- sitive matter and petitioners could present it to the state courts.
If the affirmative-action plan is invalid under state law, the Court of Appeals need not have reached the federal constitutional issue. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals declined to resolve the pendent state-law claim. Under Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 546, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1383, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974), and Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), this was an abuse of discretion in the circumstances of this case.
We accordingly grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaShawn A. v. Barry
...of discretion...." 383 U.S. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139. 8 There is no other way to explain Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District, 457 U.S. 594, 595, 102 S.Ct. 2612, 2612, 73 L.Ed.2d 245 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that a federal court's decision whether to resolve pendent loc......
-
SOUTH FLA. CHAPTER, ETC. v. METROPOLITAN DADE CTY.
...of the case. See Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District, 662 F.2d 550 (9th Cir.1981); vacated and remanded, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 2612, 73 L.Ed.2d 245 (1982). Accordingly, the Court turns first to Plaintiffs' two pendent claims contained in the complaint. Taking them in the reverse or......
-
LaShawn A. v. Barry, 94-7044
...left to the discretion of the court that makes it. There is no other way to explain Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District, 457 U.S. 594, 595, 102 S.Ct. 2612, 2612, 73 L.Ed.2d 245 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that a federal court's decision whether to resolve pendent local la......
-
Executive Software North America, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California
...new contexts to find the assertion of pendent jurisdiction especially appropriate. See, e.g., Schmidt v. Oakland Unified Land Dist., 457 U.S. 594, 595, 102 S.Ct. 2612, 2612, 73 L.Ed.2d 245 (1982) (holding that it was an abuse of discretion under Gibbs not to assert pendent jurisdiction over......