Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_14-cv-00413/USCOURTS-alnd-5_14-cv-00413-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ALABAMA SPACE SCIENCE 

EXHIBIT COMMISSION d/b/a U.S. 

SPACE & ROCKET CENTER,

Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,

v.

ODYSSEIA CO., LTD.,

Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 5:14-CV-00413-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This declaratory judgment action began in state court. Plaintiff Alabama 

Space Science Exhibit Commission d/b/a U.S. Space and Rocket Center or ASSEC 

believes that the case should remain in a state forum. For a second time, ASSEC 

has asked the Court to remand the action to state court. ASSEC argues that the 

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because ASSEC is not a 

citizen for purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(2).1 The Court disagrees.

 

1 ASSEC previously argued that defendant Odysseia Co., Ltd., a Korean limited company, 

removed the action improperly because the amount in controversy did not meet 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)’s $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. The Court rejected ASSEC’s arguments on this 

point and denied ASSEC’s original motion to remand. (See Docs. 28, 30). 

In its first motion to remand, ASSEC did not challenge diversity of citizenship. (See Doc. 8-1, p. 

2). Nevertheless, ASSEC’s second motion to remand is timely because if at any time before 

final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 

FILED

 2016 Aug-19 PM 04:36

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 15
2

 As the Court explained in its order denying ASSEC’s first motion to 

remand, diversity jurisdiction exists when “the matter in controversy exceeds the 

sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between - (2) 

citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(2); see also Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 

1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010) (“For federal diversity jurisdiction to attach, all parties 

must be completely diverse, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).”) (citations omitted). ASSEC contends that it is not a citizen 

for purposes of § 1332 because it is an arm of the State of Alabama. “[I]f a party is 

deemed to be ‘an arm or alter ego of the State,’ then diversity jurisdiction must 

fail;” however, a “public entity or political subdivision of a state, unless simply an 

‘arm or alter ego of the State’” is “a citizen of the state for diversity purposes.” 

Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting 

Moor v. Alameda Cnty., 411 U.S. 693, 717-718 (1973)). The Court’s task then is 

to determine whether ASSEC is an arm or alter ego of the State of Alabama.

 

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at 

any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 

The Court held a hearing on ASSEC’s second motion to remand. A court reporter was present, 

and a transcript is available upon request. 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 15
3

“Although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of 

immunity,” the Court must conduct an Eleventh Amendment immunity analysis to 

determine whether ASSEC is an arm or alter ego of the State of Alabama “for the 

purpose of diversity jurisdiction.” Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 412; see also

Coastal Petroleum Co. v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals, A Div. of U. S. Steel Corp., 695 

F.2d 1314, 1318 (11th Cir. 1983). To determine whether ASSEC is an “arm of the 

state” for Eleventh Amendment immunity purposes, the Court considers the 

following factors: “(1) how the state law defines the entity; (2) the degree of state

control over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its funds; and (4) who is 

responsible for judgments against the entity.” Nichols v. Alabama State Bar, 815 

F.3d 726, 732 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Lightfoot v. Henry Cty. School Dist., 771

F.3d 764, 769 (11th Cir. 2014); Manders v. Lee, 338 F. 3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 

2003.

“The issue of whether an entity is an ‘arm of the state’ for Eleventh 

Amendment purposes is ultimately a question of federal law. But the federal 

question can be answered only after considering provisions of state law.” 

Manders, 338 F.3d at 1309. When determining whether a state entity is entitled to 

Eleventh Amendment immunity, “the most important factor is how the entity has 

been treated by state courts.” Versiglio v. Bd. of Dental Exam’rs of Ala., 686 F.3d 

1290, 1292 (11th Cir. 2012). The Court has located no opinion in which an 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 15
4

Alabama state court has determined whether ASSEC is an arm of the state entitled 

to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Therefore, the Court turns its attention to the 

remaining Eleventh Amendment immunity factors. 

A. Degree of Control the State Maintains Over ASSEC

The Alabama legislature established ASSEC by statute in 1965 to operate 

the U.S. Space and Rocket Center. Ala. Code §§ 41-9-430 – 4-9-439. The 

enabling statute provides:

There is hereby created and established a state agency to be known as 

the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, which shall be a 

public body corporate with all the powers and privileges of a 

corporation, for the purpose of providing for and participating in the 

management and control of facilities to house and display such visual 

exhibits of space exploration and hardware used therefor as may be 

made available by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. Such facility shall constitute a permanent housing for 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration exhibit, which 

shall be open to the general public and shall be located at a place to be 

designated and made available in Madison County for a nominal cost 

through the cooperation of the Department of the Army or at such 

other locations as the commission may deem appropriate.

Ala. Code § 41-9-430. The State empowered ASSEC to engage in activities to 

maintain the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, and the State granted to ASSEC 

numerous independent powers. See generally Ala. Code § 41-9-432.2 

 

2 During the hearing on ASSEC’s second motion to remand, counsel for ASSEC conceded that 

the State delegated broad powers to the Commission. Counsel stated, “Again, I stand here and 

tell you that the powers that are delegated to Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission are 

very broad. I think when you read through that legislation, there is no way I could tell you we 

have very limited powers period.” (Tr. p. 5).

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 4 of 15
5

When the Alabama legislature created ASSEC, it retained little control over 

the public corporation, choosing instead to vest ASSEC with significant fiscal and 

managerial autonomy.3 The first sentence of the enabling statute explains that 

ASSEC “shall be a public body corporate with all the powers and privileges of a 

corporation . . . .” Ala. Code § 41-9-430. The State of Alabama maintains some 

limited control over ASSEC; however, for the most part, ASSEC operates like a 

private corporation. 

For example, ASSEC makes its own hiring and employment decisions. 

Alabama Code § 41-9-432(13) states:

[ASSEC] shall be authorized: . . . [t]o employ an executive director 

and such additional personnel as may be necessary to accomplish the 

purposes of this article. The executive director and such additional 

personnel as may be employed by [ASSEC] will serve at the pleasure 

of [ASSEC]. [ASSEC] shall fix the compensation of the executive 

director, and such additional personnel and such compensation shall 

be paid from the funds of [ASSEC]. [ASSEC] shall designate the 

duties and authority of the executive director and such additional 

personnel. . . . 

Id. Although the Governor appoints the public corporation’s 18 members (i.e. 

directors in corporate lingo) and may remove any member “for just cause,” see

Ala. Code § 41-9-431, this limited state oversight is not dispositive. Tex. Dep’t of 

 

3

Enactment by a state legislature does not automatically mean that a state agency is an “arm or 

alter ego of the State” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coastal Petroleum Co., 

695 F.2d at 1318; C.H. Leavell & Co., 424 F.2d 764, 765-67 (5th Cir. 1970) (holding that the 

Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, a state agency created by the state 

legislature, was “a sufficiently separate entity from the State of Louisiana to sustain diversity 

jurisdiction”). 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 5 of 15
6

Housing Cmty. Affairs v. Verex Assurance, Inc., 68 F.3d 922, 927 (5th Cir. 1995), 

partially overruled on other grounds by Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 

386, 412 n.19 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that the state-created agency with directors 

appointed by the governor was a citizen for purposes of, and subject to, the federal 

court’s jurisdiction).

ASSEC independently manages most financial matters affecting the 

Commission. For example, ASSEC is liable for obligations related to revenue 

bonds that the Commission issues. See Ala. Code § 41-9-435 (“All revenue bonds 

issued by [ASSEC] shall be solely and exclusively the obligations of [ASSEC] and 

shall not create an obligation or debt of the state or of any county or of any 

municipality within the state.”). Additionally, “general obligation bonds shall also 

be payable from and secured by a pledge of the revenues and income of [ASSEC] 

remaining after the payment of the reasonable and necessary expenses of operating 

and maintaining the facilities to be constructed by [ASSEC].” Ala. Code § 41-9-

434. 

The state’s role in ASSEC’s financial matters is extremely limited. The 

Governor must approve ASSEC’s decision to sell or issue “interest-bearing general 

obligation bonds not in excess of $1,900,000.00 in principal amount as authorized 

by constitutional amendment,” and these bonds are “general obligations of the 

State of Alabama.” Ala. Code § 41-9-432(5). Otherwise, ASSEC may raise,

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 6 of 15
7

borrow, and allocate funds without State approval or oversight. See Ala. Code § 

41-9-432(4);4 Ala. Code § 41-9-432(8);

5 Ala. Code § 41-9-432(11);6 Ala. Code § 

41-9-436(1).

7

 “[ASSEC]’s relative independence in controlling its operations and 

managing its finances” demonstrates that ASSEC, not the State of Alabama, is the 

real party in interest in this action. See Tex. Dep’t of Housing & Cmty. Affairs, 68 

 

4 ASSEC is authorized to:

borrow money from private sources or such other sources as may be acceptable to 

[ASSEC] under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law and, in 

order to provide security for the repayment of any such private loans, to pledge 

such future revenues from admissions and any other sources as may from time to 

time be necessary or desirable.

Ala. Code § 41-9-432(4).

5 ASSEC is authorized to:

make such contracts in the issuance of its bonds as may seem necessary or 

desirable to assure their marketability and to provide for their retirement by a 

pledge of all or any revenue which may come to [ASSEC] from the investment of 

the proceeds of the sale of such bonds or from any other source whatsoever.

Ala. Code § 41-9-432(8). 

6 ASSEC may “allocate and expend funds from all donations, income and revenue from any 

source whatsoever coming into its treasury for the fulfillment and accomplishment of its duties 

and responsibilities.” Ala. Code § 41-9-432(11).

7 ASSEC:

shall have, in addition to the power and authority enumerated in Section 41-9-432, 

the right, power and authority to: . . . [d]evelop and institute a program of 

promotion and advertising of the exhibits and facilities provided for by this 

article, said program of promotion and advertising to be conducted by [ASSEC] 

both within and without the state in such manner and to such extent as may be 

deemed economically advisable and appropriate by [ASSEC].

Ala. Code § 41-9-436(1).

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 7 of 15
8

F.3d at 928; compare Nichols, 815 F.3d at 732 (holding that the Alabama State Bar 

is an arm of the State in part because “[t]he State Bar’s collection of fees is 

authorized by the Alabama legislature, those fees are deposited into the state 

treasury and can be spent only as appropriated by the Alabama legislature, and the 

Alabama Department of Finance supervises the State Bar’s finances.”). 

In addition to its relative financial independence, ASSEC is legislatively 

authorized to contract in its own name. See Ala. Code § 41-9-432(3).

8

 Indeed, 

ASSEC, and not the State of Alabama, entered into the contract that forms the 

basis of this litigation. (See Doc. 1-1, p. 3, ¶ 9 (“Effective March 20, 2006, the 

ASSEC and Odysseia entered into an agreement, called an Offer to Enter into 

Licensing Agreement (the ‘Option’), pursuant to which Odysseia was to pay 

ASSEC certain fees and to engage in certain activities related to the potential 

development of a Space Camp® program in South Korea. . .”)).

ASSEC also owns the property at issue – the Space Camp® program. See 

Ala. Code § 41-9-432(15) (providing that ASSEC is authorized “[t]o expend funds 

 

8 ASSEC is authorized to: 

enter into such contracts and cooperative agreements with the local, state and 

federal governments, with agencies of such governments, including the 

Department of the Army and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

with private individuals, corporations, associations and other organizations as 

[ASSEC] may deem necessary or convenient to carry out the purpose of this 

article, such contracts and agreements to include leases to private industry[.]

Ala. Code. § 41-9-432(3). 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 8 of 15
9

of [ASSEC] in the development, operation, promotion and expansion of the 

programs and activities of [ASSEC] including the franchising, nationally and 

internationally, of the United States Space Camp, a youth science program 

developed and owned by [ASSEC]”). Because ASSEC entered into the contract at 

issue and owns the property that is the subject of this dispute, this lawsuit does not 

affect a “state contract or property right.” Armory Comm’n of Alabama v. Staudt, 

388 So. 2d 991, 993 (Ala. 1980); see also Coastal Petroleum Co., 695 F.2d at 1318

(holding that a state agency was a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction 

when the “state [] vested title of the” property at issue in the agency); Tex. Dep’t of 

Housing & Cmty. Affairs, 68 F.3d at 928 (recognizing that the state agency’s 

“power to enter into its own contracts” weighed in favor of finding that the agency 

was subject to diversity jurisdiction in federal court); compare Centraal Stikstof 

Verkoopkantoor, N.A. v. Ala. State Docks Dep’t, 415 F.2d 452, 457 (5th Cir. 1969) 

(finding that a state agency was an alter ego of the State of Alabama in part 

because the legislation creating the agency allowed the agency to “develop and 

harbor facilities in the name of the State,” and “title to all property vests in the 

State of Alabama”).9

 

9 Centraal Stikstof Verkoopkantoor is binding in this Circuit. See Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 

1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth 

Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 9 of 15
10

With respect to property, ASSEC can acquire, sell, convey, transfer, 

mortgage, lease, or donate property in its own name without approval from the 

State of Alabama. See Ala. Code § 41-9-432(10) (ASSEC is authorized “[t]o 

acquire property by purchase, lease, gift or license, such power not to include the 

purchase of a site for the facility”); Ala. Code § 41-9-432(12) (ASSEC is 

authorized “[t]o sell, convey, transfer, mortgage, lease, or donate any property, 

franchise, grant, easement, license or lease or interest therein which it may own 

and to transfer, assign, sell, mortgage, convey, or donate any right, title or interest 

to which it may have in any lease, contract, agreement, license, or property”). 

Beyond having property rights, ASSEC can sue and be sued in its own name 

as evidenced by ASSEC filing this action on its own. In addition to this action, 

ASSEC is or has been a party-defendant in a number of actions in this judicial 

district. See Parker v. Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, 2:15-cv-40-

AKK; Stroik v. U.S. Alabama Space Exhibit Commission, No. 5:10-cv-00071-CLS;

Mullin v. Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission; et al., No. 5:99-cv-00301-

UWC. Citing a letter dated November 25, 2014 from the Commission’s 

procurement manager to outside counsel explaining that the Legislative Contract 

Review Oversight Committee had approved a contract between the Commission 

and outside counsel in this case, ASSEC argues that the State of Alabama oversees 

this litigation. (Doc. 35-1). The critical point though is that ASSEC engaged 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 10 of 15
11

outside attorneys to represent it in this lawsuit; the Alabama Attorney General’s 

Office does not represent ASSEC. See C.H. Leavell & Co., 424 F.2d at 767 (in 

holding that the state agency at issue was subject to diversity jurisdiction in federal 

court, the court noted that the state agency had engaged its own counsel “rather 

than being represented by the State’s legal officer, the Attorney General”).

Because ASSEC hires its own personnel; raises and spends money with 

limited State oversight; contracts in its own name; owns property, including the 

property at the center of this lawsuit; can sue and be sued in its own name; and is 

not limited to representation by the State Attorney General’s Office, the Court 

finds that ASSEC operates like a private corporation and is an entity separate from 

the State of Alabama. Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs., State of Fla. v. Davis, 

616 F.2d 828, 833 (5th Cir. 1980) (“There is . . . authority in this Circuit to support 

jurisdiction in a diversity suit between a state agency and a citizen of another state 

where the agency is invested with the power to sue and be sued, and possesses 

generally recognized corporate powers.”); Texas Dep’t of Housing and Cmty 

Affairs, 68 F.3d at 928 (“[T]he fact that the agency had the authority to hold and 

use property, the authority to sue and be sued in its corporate name, the power to 

enter into its own contracts, and the power to make its own hiring decisions, and 

the fact that it managed its own finances and was responsible for its own debts 

weigh in favor of finding that THA is an independent agency.”). 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 11 of 15
12

B. Where the Entity Derives its Funds

The record indicates that ASSEC derives most, if not all, of its funds from 

sources other than the State treasury. The enabling legislation neither requires the 

State to appropriate funds to ASSEC nor suggests that the State might do so under 

certain circumstances. The enabling legislation authorizes ASSEC to raise money 

to support its operations. For example, ASSEC is legislatively authorized to 

“accept public or private gifts, grants and donations.” Ala. Code § 41-9-432(9). 

The statute also empowers ASSEC to operate concessions at the U.S. Space & 

Rocket Center to provide revenue. Ala. Code § 41-9-436(3).

10 And ASSEC 

derives revenue from the operation of lodging facilities at the Space and Rocket 

Center. See Ala. Code § 41-9-435.

11

 

10 ASSEC:

shall have, in addition to the power and authority enumerated in Section 41-9-432, 

the right, power and authority to: . . . [o]perate itself or, in its discretion enter into 

lease agreement with a person or agency of its choosing to operate, all 

concessions located in or on the grounds and facilities operated by [ASSEC], any 

such lease agreement to be so designated as to provide maximum services and 

convenience to the patrons of the exhibit center and to provide reasonable revenue 

return to [ASSEC].

Ala. Code § 41-9-436(3). 

11 Ala. Code § 41-0-435 provides in relevant part:

All revenue bonds issued by the commission for the purpose of providing lodging 

facilities shall be payable solely out of the revenues and receipts derived from the 

operation, leasing or sale by the commission of such lodging facilities . . . .

Id. 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 12 of 15
13

In 2014, the U.S. Space & Rocket Center was the top tourist attraction in the 

State for which visitors paid admission fees. (Doc. 41, p. 8; Tr. p. 5).12 

Information that ASSEC publishes on its website demonstrates that the 

Commission raises significant revenue from, among other sources, admission and 

special camp fees, membership packages, souvenirs and other merchandise, and 

facility rentals.

13

C. Who is Responsible for Judgments Against the Entity

ASSEC’s enabling statute does not state explicitly whether ASSEC or the 

State of Alabama is responsible for judgments against the Commission; however, 

ASSEC has its own treasury and may “allocate and expend funds from all 

 

12 See also U.S. Space & Rocket Center is Top paid tourist attraction in 2014, AL.com (Feb. 4, 

2015) http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/2015/02/alabama_tourism_attractions_in.html.)

13 See http://www.spacecampstore.com/Museum-Admission-Museum-Admission/ (children’s 

admission to the museum is $15.00 and adult admission is $23.00); 

http://www.spacecamp.com/space/camp (summer 2016 week long space camp fees range from 

$949.00 per person to $1049.00 per person); http://www.spacecamp.com/aviation/machI

(summer 2016 aviation challenge fees are $949.00 per person); 

http://www.spacecamp.com/robotics (summer 2016 week long robotics camp fees are $649.00 

person); http://rocketcenter.com/membership (explaining membership options ranging from 

$30.00 to $1,000.00); http://www.spacecampstore.com/ (providing links to purchase space 

apparel and accessories, space toys, space collectibles and gifts, space books, DVDs, and posters, 

space souvenirs, and camp gear); http://rocketcenter.com/specialevents/eventspaces (providing 

rental fee rates for corporate classrooms, training facilities, shuttle park, main exhibit area, 

Apollo Courtyard, Apollo Terrace, digital theater, and Saturn V Hall). 

The Court takes judicial notice of these facts from the U.S. Space & Rocket Center website 

because the information “can accurately and readily be determined from sources whose accuracy 

cannot reasonably be questioned.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); see also Coleman v. Dretke, 409, 

F.3d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 2005) (finding that a previous panel did not err in taking judicial notice 

of a state agency website); In re Everglades Island Boat Tours, LLC, 484 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1261 

(M.D. Fla. 2007) (taking judicial notice of state agency website). 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 13 of 15
14

donations, income and revenue from any source whatsoever coming into its 

treasury for the fulfillment and accomplishment of its duties and responsibilities . . 

. .” Ala Code. § 41-9-432(11). This provision suggests, and ASSEC has not 

disputed, that the Commission, and not the State of Alabama, is responsible for 

judgments against ASSEC. The Court has no information before it to suggest that 

any entity other than ASSEC would be responsible for paying a judgment against 

the Commission. Accordingly, the Court finds that a judgment against ASSEC 

would not “adversely affect the state treasury.” Staudt, 388 So. 2d at 994; but see 

Nichols, 815 F.3d at 732-33 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Judgments against the State Bar 

will be paid out of its state treasury fund, but only ‘as budgeted and allotted’ by the 

Alabama legislature, potentially affecting the treasury as a whole.”) (internal 

citation omitted).

II. CONCLUSION 

On the record before it, the Court concludes that ASSEC is not an arm of the 

State of Alabama. Rather, ASSEC is “a separate and distinct entity from the state.” 

Coastal Petroleum Co., 695 F.2d at 1318. Therefore, ASSEC is a citizen for 

purposes of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, and ASSEC and Odysseia are 

completely diverse.14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES ASSEC’s second motion to 

 

14 The Court recognizes that its holding that ASSEC is not an arm of the State conflicts with a

recent decision from the Middle District of Alabama. See Ingalls v. U.S. Space & Rocket Center, 

2015 WL 4528687, at *6 (M.D. Ala. July 27, 2015) (finding that ASSEC was entitled to 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 14 of 15
15

remand. By separate order, the Court will set a briefing schedule on ASSEC’s 

motion to dismiss Odysseia’s counterclaim. (See Doc. 43). 

DONE and ORDERED this August 19, 2016.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Eleventh Amendment immunity because “the Commission operates as arm of the State”). 

Ingalls is not binding on this Court. See Am. Elec. Power Co. v. Conn., 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2540 

(2011) (explaining that “federal district judges, sitting as sole adjudicators, lack authority to rend 

precedential decisions binding other judges, even members of the same court”); Camreta v. 

Greene, 563 U.S. 692, n.7 (2011) (‘“A decision of a federal district court judge is not binding 

precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same 

judge in a different case.’”) (quoting 18 J. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 134.02[1] [d], 

p. 134–26 (3d ed.2011)). The Court does not challenge the wisdom of the Ingalls holding; 

however, the Court, on the record that the parties have presented regarding ASSEC’s second 

motion to remand, finds that ASSEC is not an arm of the State. 

The Court’s holding that ASSEC is not an arm of the State is consistent with a recent decision 

from another judge on this court. See Parker v. Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission, 

2:15-cv-40-AKK (Doc. 12) (denying ASSEC’s motion to dismiss and finding that ASSEC is not 

an arm of the State of Alabama for sovereign immunity purposes). 

Case 5:14-cv-00413-MHH Document 52 Filed 08/19/16 Page 15 of 15