dtpa claim in Rhode Island

2009The hearing justice determined that based on this Court’s decision in Park v. Ford Motor Co., 844 A.2d 687, 694 (R.I.2004), in which we held that the Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims that are joined to a DTPA claim, there was ancillary jurisdiction over Ms. Ricci’s negligence claim because the Court was vested with jurisdiction over the DTPA claim.

2009The hearing justice determined that based on this Court’s decision in Park v. Ford Motor Co., 844 A.2d 687, 694 (R.I.2004), in which we held that the Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims that are joined to a DTPA claim, there was ancillary jurisdiction over Ms. Ricci’s negligence claim because the Court was vested with jurisdiction over the DTPA claim.

2014See Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 612 A.2d 1130, 1143-44 (Conn. 1992) * * * .” However, in my opinion, Dell’s actions which form the basis of the DTPA claim at issue in the instant case are so obviously not immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous that I consider that conclusion sufficient to establish that summary judgment in favor of Dell was appropriate. - 32 - Dell’s actions were “relevant and consequential” because they affected a consumer’s choice with respect to the product overcomes any such presumption.

2014See Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes, 612 A.2d 1130, 1143-44 (Conn. 1992) * * * .” However, in my opinion, Dell’s actions which form the basis of the DTPA claim at issue in the instant case are so obviously not immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous that I consider that conclusion sufficient to establish that summary judgment in favor of Dell was appropriate. - 32 - Dell’s actions were “relevant and consequential” because they affected a consumer’s choice with respect to the product overcomes any such presumption.

2009The hearing justice also relied on our decision in Park v. Ford Motor Co., 928 A.2d 469, 473 (R.I.2007), where we held that the Superior Court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over other claims that a plaintiff may have, even if those claims would not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, when those claims are joined with a DTPA claim.

2009The hearing justice also relied on our decision in Park v. Ford Motor Co., 928 A.2d 469, 473 (R.I.2007), where we held that the Superior Court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over other claims that a plaintiff may have, even if those claims would not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, when those claims are joined with a DTPA claim.

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2004In this case, the Attorney General essentially asks us to abrogate Piedmont Funding’s oft-reiterated holding that § 6-13.1-4’s plain language “clearly exempted from the [DTPA] all those activities and businesses which are subject to monitoring by state or federal regulatory bodies or officers.” See, e.g., Chavers, 844 A.2d at 670; Kondracky v. Crystal Restoration, Inc., 791 A.2d 482, 484 (R.I.2002) (mem.); Kelley v. Cowesett Hills Associates, 768 A.2d 425, 432 (R.I.2001) (per curiam); Doyle v. Chihoski, 443 A.2d 1243, 1244 (R.I.1982) (per curiam); Perron v. Treasurer of Woonsocket, 121 R.I. 78

2002See generally ERI Max Entertainment, Inc. v. Streisand, 690 A.2d 1351 , 1354 (R.I. 1997) (granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss DTPA claims where complaint failed to allege conduct within the definition of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices); Young v. Park, 359 A.2d 697 , 700 (R.I. 1976) (granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion where statute of limitations had expired on its face).

2002See generally ERI Max Entertainment, Inc. v. Streisand, 690 A.2d 1351 , 1354 (R.I. 1997) (granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss DTPA claims where complaint failed to allege conduct within the definition of unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices); Young v. Park, 359 A.2d 697 , 700 (R.I. 1976) (granting Rule 12(b)(6) motion where statute of limitations had expired on its face).