Opinion ID: 441758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of the Pendent State Law Claims.

Text: 32 Despite having heard all of the evidence on the claims at trial, the district court declined to address Almendral's state law claims involving improper manipulation of New York's civil service laws. Appellees' counsel admitted at oral argument that the evidence in support of the federal causes of action was virtually identical to the evidence in support of Almendral's state law claims. Although pendent jurisdiction is a matter of discretion, see United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), [i]ts justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants. Id. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984), appears to warrant dismissal of the state claims. 33 In Pennhurst, the Court concluded that the eleventh amendment barred the federal district court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law. Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 910. In so doing, the Court stated: 34 We concluded above that a claim that state officials violated state law in carrying out their official responsibilities is a claim against the State that is protected by the Eleventh Amendment.... We now hold that this principle applies as well to state-law claims brought into federal court under pendent jurisdiction. 35 Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 919. 36 Almendral's assertion that New York's civil service, executive, and other statutory laws as well as its constitution were violated is a claim that State officials violated state law in carrying out their official responsibilities. As such, the state law claims are barred by the eleventh amendment. Thus, they were appropriately dismissed. 4