injunctive relief on the basis of state law. UPS was thus precluded from seeking adjudication of its state law claims in the federal action. We do not believe that a party should be required to forfeit its state law claims as the price of obtaining a federal forum for its federal claims. Finally, we observe that opting to avoid the CPUC and state hearing process would not have insured UPS a federal hearing, but would likely have forestalled it. We have held that a litigant may not seek to evade the preclusive effect of state review by foregoing the right to state court appeal. Eilrich v. Remas, 839 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 819, 109 S.Ct. 60, 102 L.Ed.2d 38 (1988). See also Ashbury Truck Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 52 F.2d 263, 268-69 (D.C.Cal.1931) (<HOLDING>), affd, 287 U.S. 570, 53 S.Ct. 94, 77 L.Ed. 501
holding that where party made argument for first time in motion for rehearing in court of appeals error if any was waived holding that motor carriers motion to enjoin state railroad commission  an administrative precursor to the cpuc  was without equity where carrier failed to apply for rehearing or review by state supreme court holding that there is no authority for a motion for rehearing of an order disposing of a rule 3800 motion to correct illegal sentence and therefore the motion for rehearing did not postpone rendition of the order so as to make the notice of appeal timely holding that under the circumstances of that case an argument made for the first time in a motion for rehearing was waived holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable