Opinion ID: 199835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pendent State-Law Claims

Text: 51 Once the federal claims were dismissed, it was within the discretion of the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Tomaiolo's state law claims. Roche, 81 F.3d at 256-57. The court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its jurisdiction over the claims against the escrow defendants. The litigation was far advanced: the court had before it cross-motions for summary judgment, discovery had closed, Tomaiolo had filed her sixth amended complaint, and all claims arose from the same core of facts. That exercise of jurisdiction quite furthered judicial economy. Moreover, we perceive no unfairness: Tomaiolo chose to be in federal court, and once there received ample opportunity to litigate all of her claims, federal and state.
52 Tomaiolo asserted that both the municipal defendants and the escrow defendants had violated Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of Rhode Island, which provides that: 53 The burdens of the state ought to be fairly distributed among its citizens. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the law. 54 The first sentence of this section, regarding the burdens of the state, is either judicially unenforceable or else imposes the same constraint as the later reference to equal protection. Town of Lincoln v. City of Pawtucket, 745 A.2d 139, 146 (R.I. 2000). The second sentence incorporates language similar to that of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. In interpreting that sentence, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has noted the similarity and has engaged in a state action inquiry similar to that in Brentwood and Tarkanian. See, e.g., Kleczek v. R.I. Interscholastic League, Inc., 612 A.2d 734, 735-36 (R.I. 1992). The district court therefore correctly concluded that without state action by the escrow defendants, Tomaiolo's state constitutional claim against them could not succeed. 55 Although the district court did not explicitly discuss the state constitutional claim against the municipal defendants, the logic behind dismissing the federal claims out of deference to the state system would suggest similar deference as to the state constitutional claim. We understand the court to have declined to exercise its jurisdiction over this claim, and approve.
56 We agree with the district court's concise analysis dismissing these claims against the escrow defendants and see no need to add to the discussion. 1st Cir. R. 27.1.