at 4. Accordingly, the arguments made separately by Ms. Torchinsky are moot. George Heinrich’s motion, which is joined in by Ms. Torchinsky, asserts the court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims against the individual defendants in counts TV and V, that the claims are barred for failure to give notice under the Local Government Tort Claims Act, and that the counts IV and V fail to allege necessary elements of each tort. State Tort Claims With regard to any possible state law tort claims, the court must consider the preliminary issue of Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the notice provision of the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA). Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud.Proc. § 5-304 (1998); see Ashton v. Brown, 339 Md. 70, 660 A.2d 447, 465 n. 19 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ state law
holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding executive jet analysis applies outside aviation torts holding that some form of heightened constitutional scrutiny applies holding that the lgtca applies to constitutional torts holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits