Federal Court  Jurisdiction
State Immunity-Waiver

State Immunity-Waiver By removing the case from state to federal court

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Topic: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law 11th Amendment
Title od Case: LAPIDES v. BD. OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA
Date: 05/13/02
Case Number: 01-298

Paul Lapides, a professor employed by the Georgia state university system, brought this lawsuit in a Georgia state court. He sued respondents, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (hereinafter Georgia or State) and university officials acting in both their personal capacities and as agents of the State. Lapides' lawsuit alleged that university officials placed allegations of sexual harassment in his personnel files. And Lapides claimed that their doing so violated both Georgia law, see Georgia Tort Claims Act, Ga. Code Ann. §50-21-23 (1994) and federal law, see Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V). . . .

All defendants joined in removing the case to Federal District Court, 28 U. S. C. §1441 (1994 ed.), where they sought dismissal. Those individuals whom Lapides had sued in their personal capacities argued that the doctrine of "qualified immunity" barred Lapides' federal-law claims against them. And the District Court agreed. The State, while conceding that a state statute had waived sovereign immunity from state-law suits in state court, argued that, by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment, it remained immune from suit in federal court. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 11 (limiting scope of "judicial power of the United States" (emphasis added)). But the District Court did not agree. Rather, in its view, by removing the case from state to federal court, the State had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 238 (1985) (State may waive Eleventh Amendment immunity).  . . .

It would seem anomalous or inconsistent for a State both (1) to invoke federal jurisdiction, thereby contending that the "Judicial power of the United States" extends to the case at hand, and (2) to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity, thereby denying that the "Judicial power of the United States" extends to the case at hand. And a Constitution that permitted States to follow their litigation interests by freely asserting both claims in the same case could generate seriously unfair results. Thus, it is not surprising that more than a century ago this Court indicated that a State's voluntary appearance in federal court amounted to a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity. Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447 (1883) (State's "voluntary appearance" in federal court as an intervenor avoids Eleventh Amendment inquiry). The Court subsequently held, in the context of a bankruptcy claim, that a State "waives any immunity . . . respecting the adjudication of" a "claim" that it voluntarily files in federal court. Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U. S. 565, 574 (1947). And the Court has made clear in general that "where a State voluntarily becomes a party to a cause and submits its rights for judicial determination, it will be bound thereby and cannot escape the result of its own voluntary act by invoking the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment." Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 200 U. S. 273, 284 (1906) (emphasis added). The Court has long accepted this statement of the law as valid, often citing with approval the cases embodying that principle. See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 681, n. 3 (1999) (citing Gardner); Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U. S. 279, 294, and n. 10 (1973) (Marshall, J., concurring in result) (citing Clark); Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 U. S. 275, 276 (1959) (citing Clark).

Summary: A state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it voluntarily invokes federal court jurisdiction by removing a case from state court to federal court.

LAPIDES v. BD. OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA 
 

Federal Court Basics-Table of Contents 
Part 003-Map: Geographical boundaries of U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. District Courts-pdf   bbb
Probate Exception-Not Applicable to validity of a trust (SIANIS v. JENSEN0-1-2898) mmm 
MARSHALL v. MARSHALl-FL
LAPIDES v. BD. OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA-FL

California State Bar Court Reports | Master Table of Contents | Spanish Dictionaries |Check Your Credit Score
Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet | Entertainment  | UN Treaty Reference Guide
Directory of Medical Dictionaries  | California Injury (Torts) Law | Yaazoo! | Finance Center   
Florida Fun | Law Dictionary | White House | US Government | White House | US Government    
eWorld Guide | US Courts| Law Students-US | State Courts | California Criminal Law | California Appeals 
 California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law | iBusiness Center | California Writs
Yaazoo! | Abogados Latinos   | Agogados De Accidentes  | United States History | Spanish | Finance Center   
California State Rules of Court | Injury Attorneys | California Legal Forms | Federal Rules of Evidence.Com