Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01444/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01444-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGINA SHANTELL THOMAS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE )

CORPORATION, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1444 REC/DLB

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

PREPARE TO DISCUSS CERTAIN

ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT.

On February 8, 2006, Defendant State of California

Department of Transportation (the “State”) filed a Motion to

Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to

State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, or in the

Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). On

February 24, 2006, Plaintiff opposed the Motion, arguing, among

other things, that the Court should remand only the claims

against the State on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

In light of the briefs the parties have submitted and its

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 03/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

preliminary research, the Court directs the parties to be

prepared to discuss the following issues at oral argument on

Monday, March 20, 2006:

1. Whether the Court may, using its power to remand under

28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), remand to state court claims against

the State while retaining claims against other parties.

2. Whether the State’s invocation of its Eleventh

Amendment immunity should be construed as a motion to remand by a

party not served at the time of removal under 28 U.S.C. section

1448.

3. Whether the State’s failure to move to remand under 28

U.S.C. section 1448, its arguments against remand and in favor of

federal jurisdiction in its Reply brief (Reply 2:19-21), and its

request for dismissal on the merits constitute a waiver of its

Eleventh Amendment immunity. Cf. Embury v. King, 361 F.3d 562,

564 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Allowing a State to waive immunity to

remove a case to federal court, then ‘unwaive’ it to assert that

the federal court could not act, would create a new definition of

chutzpah. We decline to give the State such unlimited leeway,

and instead hold to a straightforward, easy-to-administer rule in

accord with Lapides: Removal waives Eleventh Amendment

immunity.” (footnotes omitted)); see Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of

Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 622, 122 S. Ct. 1640, 152 L. Ed.

2d 806 (2002) (holding that waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity

turns on whether the State has “voluntarily invoked the

jurisdiction of the federal court, . . .”).

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 03/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01444-OWW -DLB Document 23 Filed 03/15/06 Page 3 of 3