Filed June 22, 2015
Beers holds that a state may “alter the conditions of its waiver and apply those changes to a pending suit.” College Savs. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676 (1999) (citing Beers). According to Oracle in its opposition to Cover Oregon’s earlier Rule 12(c) motion, Beers holds that a state may alter the conditions of its waiver only “absent any contractual commitment to the contrary.”
Filed January 10, 2017
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §8521(b).” 540 F. 3d at 196, n. 3(citation omitted). 13 rights, must involve the "'intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. . . .'" Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. at 682 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938)). Accordingly, we must "indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver."
Filed November 23, 2016
Even though Congress explicitly attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity in the Lanham Act, see Lanham Act § 43(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(2), the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment protects states from Lanham Act false advertising suits. Fla. Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 690. Noting that Congress did not have the authority to abrogate sovereign immunity under the Commerce Clause, id.
Filed August 17, 2016
Thus, the federal courts are bound by the New Mexico’s waiver limiting its tort exposure to cases brought in state court. See College Savings, 527 U.S. at 676 (“[A] State does not consent to suit in federal court merely by consenting to suit in the courts of its own creation.”).
Filed June 1, 2011
[O]nly, where the State provides no remedy or only inadequate remedies to the injured patent owners for its infringement of their patent could a deprivation of property without due process result. Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 643. In the face of a violation of due process, Maryland cannot invoke Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
Filed January 13, 2011
Case law is clear that waiver requires an affirmative action by the state. See Fla. Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 675-76; Edelman, 415 U.S. at 651. Cases such as Florida Prepaid and Edelman “cannot be Case 1:08-cv-01425-ODE Document 258 Filed 01/13/11 Page 8 of 21 8 reconciled with the [Plaintiffs’] reasoning, under which a state would waive its immunity by doing nothing more than filing an answer to a complaint and conducting discovery.”
Filed May 24, 2017
Dep’t of Indus. Rel., 730 F.3d 1024, 1039 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 488-91 (1955) (applying rational basis test to economic 4 See also, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676 (1999) (“[B]usiness in the sense of the activity of doing business, or the activity of making a profit is not property in the ordinary sense . . . .”); Chapman v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co., 338 U.S. 621, 628 (1950) (rejecting a suit where the “whole claim of damage is that competition . . . will impair this snug little monopoly of the market to which plaintiff thinks it has acquired a property right”); Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118, 139 (1939) (holding that a local franchise confers “no property right to be free of competition”), disapproved on other grounds in Bond v. U.S., 564 U.S. 211, 220 (2011). Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 71 Filed 05/24/17 Page 21 of 24 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CPUC DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 4:15-cv-05163-JSW 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 regulations under both the Equal
Filed April 5, 2017
Courts have interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to bar suits against a State by its own citizens, as well as citizens of other states. See Hans v. Louisianna, 134 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1890); Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1984); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 669-670 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996). The Supreme Court has also extended the Eleventh Amendment to protect “arms of the State” from suit – “entities that by their very nature, are so intertwined with the State that any suit against them renders the State the “real, substantial party in interest.”
Filed March 20, 2017
It is not enough, for example, for a state to permit damage suits in its own courts: "In order for a state statute or constitutional provision to constitute a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity, it must specify the State's intention to subject itself to suit in federal court." Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 241; see also Minotti, Case 1:16-cv-07915-RBK-JS Document 27-1 Filed 03/20/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 218 6 798 F.2d at 610 ("there will be no waiver of immunity against federal suit unless the state specifies its intention to consent to suit in federal court"); see also College Savings Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676 (1999) (“[A] State does not consent to suit in federal court merely by consenting to suit in the courts of its own creation). A state's waiver of immunity to federal suit must be explicit and specific.
Filed February 2, 2017
As a general rule, the principle of sovereign immunity reflected in the Eleventh Amendment protects States and state officials from suits brought in federal court. See Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 669-70 (1999). There are “only two circumstances in which an individual may sue a State:” (1) where the United States Congress has “authorize[d] such a suit in the exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment” and (2) where a state has “waive[d] its sovereign immunity by consenting to suit.”