NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GENE HAZZARD, No. 23-15097

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:22-cv-02921-JSW

v. MEMORANDUM* MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; MIALISA BONTA, former CEO of Oakland Promise; DAVID SILVER, Educational Director in Mayor Schaaf's Office; BARBARA PARKER, City Attorney; COURTNEY RUBY, City Auditor; ED REISKIN, City Administrator; ANDY FREMDER, co-founder of East Bay College Fund; ROB BONTA, former 18th Assembly District Representative; SABRINA LANDRETH, former City Administrator,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023**

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Gene Hazzard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision

on whether to permit oral argument. Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County

Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on Hazzard’s requests

for judicial notice and defendants’ motion to dismiss without oral argument. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (stating that “the court may provide for submitting and

determining motions on briefs[] without oral hearings”); N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7-1(b)

(stating that “a motion may be determined without oral argument”); Morrow v.

Topping, 437 F.2d 1155, 1156 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that district courts may

rule on motions without oral argument). Although Hazzard cites Federal Rule of

Evidence 201(e), he provides no law to support his contention that this rule

requires oral argument.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental

jurisdiction over Hazzard’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The

district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state-law]

claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

2 23-15097 jurisdiction . . . .”); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth

standard of review).

We reject as unsupported by the record Hazzard’s contentions that the

district court failed to consider the record or failed to address the relevant

allegations raised in the operative complaint.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 23-15097