Opinion ID: 2490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Summary Judgment Should Be Entered In Favor Of Spinelli On Her Due Process Claim.

Text: Although Spinelli's license has been reinstated and her firearms returned, her due process claim nevertheless remains a live controversy. Because she never received the process that she was due, [D]efendants must still answer for any damages they may have caused with their [suspension of] [her] license without due process. Ginorio v. Contreras, 409 F.Supp.2d 101, 108 (D.P.R.2006). The district court must permit Spinelli to prove her damages, by computing the loss from the time the City should have provided a prompt post-deprivation hearing until December 5, 2001, when the suspension was lifted and the firearms were returned. [5]
The district court dismissed Spinelli's state-law tortious interference claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Reversal of Spinelli's due process claim also reinstates the district court's supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61, 79 (2d Cir.2003). If the aforementioned damages issue is resolved promptly, the district court should then consider whether to retain or dismiss without prejudice Spinelli's tortious interference claim.