Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Eleventh Amendment Immunity — No Waiver by Filing Third Party Complaint

The Hawaii Department of Public Safety and ten state officials were sued for negligence by a prisoner who was beaten by other inmates. In their answer, the defendants asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity as an affirmative defense. They subsequently filed a third-party complaint for indemnification or contribution against the inmates who had attacked the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that this effected a waiver of the immunity defense because it constituted an invocation of federal jurisdiction by the State defendants. The Ninth Circuit rejected this contention in Alolelei v. Hawaii Dep’t of Public Safety, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12214 (9th Cir. May 25, 2007). The Alolelei Court held that filing of a third-party complaint does not constitute an invocation of federal jurisdiction that is incompatible with an intent to preserve the immunity defense, on the following mootness/contingency analysis:

If the district court did not find that the State defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity or otherwise find for the defendants on [plaintiff’s] claims, then the third-party complaint put all of the defendants in a position to seek contribution from joint tortfeasors. If the district court found that the State defendants had sovereign immunity, then their third-party claims became moot, and in fact, the State defendants withdrew their third-party claims once the district court granted them summary judgment. State defendants, like other defendants, are allowed to assert legitimate alternative defenses.

The Alolelei Court stressed that the defendants had not delayed in asserting the immunity defense, having asserted it before filing their third-party complaint.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

Archives