Opinion ID: 198411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pendent Commonwealth Claims.

Text: 23 Neither party discusses in its briefs the relationship between the Eleventh Amendment and the pendent Puerto Rico claims. In Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 121, the Supreme Court stated that [a] federal court must examine each claim in a case to see if the court's jurisdiction over that claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Court explicitly held that this principle applied to pendent state-law claims. 24 As noted earlier, the Tourism Company's invocation of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in its motion for summary judgment should not have been rejected as untimely by the district court. Although we have held that the ADA's explicit abrogation provision negates that immunity for the ADA claim, that provision does not cover the Commonwealth claims. Unless plaintiffs are able to demonstrate abrogation of the immunity for those claims, the claims must be dismissed without prejudice on Eleventh Amendment grounds. That issue is best left to the district court in the first instance, and, indeed, we leave to its determination as well whether plaintiffs have waived any abrogation argument as to those claims.