FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11655

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo s . 0 5 - 0 1 6 3 3 - C V- OR L - 3 1 - DA B & 0 1 - 0 3 3 0 6 - B KC - KS I N R E : G r e g g T a k a f

u m i O m in e , D e b to r . __________________________________________________ I N R E : M ic h e lle L y n n O m in e ,

D e b to r .

__________________________________________________ F L O R I D A D E P A R T M E N T O F R E V E N U E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s G R E G G T A K E F U M I O M I N E , M I C H E L E L Y N N O M I N E , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .Honora ble Richard Mills, United States District Judg e for the Central District of * I llinois , sitti ngby

designation. 2

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 11, 2007) B ef ore B IR C H and B L A C K , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M IL L S , D i stri ctJudg e. * B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: T he F l ori da D epar tm entof R evenue (“ the F l ori da D O R ”) appeal s the di stri ct court ’ s orderaf

fi rm i ng an order of the bank rupt cy courtaw ar di ng dam ages af t era det erm i nat i on thatthe F l ori da D O R vi ol at ed the aut om at i c s t ay . W e c on si der w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n uphol di ng the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s di s c ha r ge of the s uppor tobl i ga t i on, a f f i r m i ng the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s hol di ng tha tthe F l or i da D O R vi ol at ed the aut om at i c s t ay , and o rder i ng dam ages . W e A F F IR M the di stri ct co u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n th atth e F l o ri d a D O R co u l d n o tassertso v erei g n i m m u n i ty, R E VE R S E a n d VA C AT E th e a wa r d o f d a m a g e s , a n d R E MAND t o the di stri ct c our tf orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.Reference s to “Omine” refer to Gre g gOmine, whose inc ome the F lorida DOR 1 attempt e d tog arnish

po st- c on firm atio n, wh e re a s re ferenc e s to“ theOmine s”re fer to th edebto rs , Gre g gan d

M i c h e l e , c o l l e c t i v e l y. 3

I . B AC KG RO UN D G r e g g a n d M ic h e le O m in e f ile d f o rC h ap te r1 3 b a n k ru p tc y p r o te c tio n in 2 0 0 1 . T h e F lo r id a D O R th e n f ile d a p r o o f

o f c la im s e e k in g to r e c o v e rp u b lic a s s i s t a nc e m one y H a w a i i pa i d t o G r e gg O m i ne ’ s f or m e rw i f

e a nd c hi l dr e n, w ho r e s i de d the r e . T hi s H a w a i i de btw a s i nc l ude d a m ong thos e t o be pa i d i n the O m i n es’ C h ap t er 1 3 p l an . T h e O m i n es fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r co n t em p tan d san ct i o n s, c ont e ndi ng tha tthe F l or i da D O R ha d c ont i nue d de bt - c ol l e c t i on e f f or t s a f t e rthe fi l i ng of the bank rupt cy pet i t i on , i n v i ol at i on of the aut om at i c s t ay . T he O m i nes w i thdr e w the m ot i on i n J a nua ry 2002 a f t e rthe F l or i da D O R a s s ur e d the m tha tno f u r th e ra c tio n s w o u ld b e ta k e n a g a in s t th e m , b u t th a t a s s u r a n c e p r o v e d illu s o ry . T he f ol l ow i ng y e a r , G r e gg O m i ne ’ s e m pl oy e rr e c e i ve d a l e tt e rf r om the F lo r id a D O R d ir e c tin g th e e m p lo y e rto g a rn is h O m in e ’s w a g e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith the H aw ai i debt . A ft ercoun se l for bot h si des c on fe rr ed, the F l ori da D O R agre ed 1 t o cea se thi s garni shm ent , bu tthen, a w ee k l at er , O m i ne re ce i ved a l ett er thr e a t e ni ng hi m w i th va r i ous pe na l t i e s i f he f a i l e d t o pa y the H a w a i i de bt . A ga i n, a f te rth e p a r tie s ’ c o u n s e l c o n f e rr e d , th e c o lle c tio n e f

f o r ts w e r e h a lte d , a lb e it o n ly t em p o rari l y.4

T he F l or i da D O R s oon di r e c t e d O m i ne ’ s e m pl oy e rt o be gi n ga rni s hi ng O m in e ’s w a g e s a g a in to p a y th e H a w a ii d e b t, a n d c o u n s e l f o re a c h s id e a g a in conferr ed and res ol ved t o h al tthe col l ec t i on ef fort . A fe w days l at erthe O m i nes r e c e iv e d a n o tic e th a t th e ir2 0 0 2 ta x r e f u n d h a d b e e n o f

f s e t a g a in s t th e H a w a ii d e b t . T h e Om i n e s th e n f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o rs a n c t i o n s th a ta l l e g e d th e F l o r i d a DO R rep eat ed l y v i o l at ed th e au t o m at i c st ay. T he ba nkrupt c y c our tf

ound tha tthe F l or i da D O R ha d w i l l f ul l y vi ol a t e d the a ut om a t i c s t a y by di r e c t i ng O m i ne ’ s e m pl oy e rt o be gi n ga rni s hi ng hi s w a ge s on tw o s e pa r a t e oc c a s i ons a nd by s e ndi ng the O m i ne s the c ol l e c t i on not i c e . T he ba nkrupt c y j udge di s c ha r ge d the r e m a i nde rof the H a w a i i de bta nd a w a r de d the O m in e s $ 1 ,0 0 0 in a c tu a l d a m a g e s , p lu s $ 1 ,6 0 0 in a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a n d c o s ts . T h e F lo r id a D O R ap p e a le d , a r g u in g th a t th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e e rr e d in hol di ng tha tthe F l or i da D O R ’ s a c t i ons vi ol a t e d the a ut om a t i c s t a y , by a w a r di ng a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s w i thouts uf

f i c i e nte vi de nt i a ry s uppor t , a nd by a w a r di ng puni t i ve d am ag es ag ain st a g o v er n m en tal u n it . T h e F lo rid a D O R as se rted th at O m in e’s pos t - pe t i t i on i nc om e w a s notpr ope r ty of the e s t a t e ; tha ts e ndi ng de bt - c ol l e c t i on l ett er s w as no tan ac t i on agai nstes t at e property; that11 U . S . C . § 3 62 (b)( 2) cr ea t ed an except i on perm i tt i ng the F l ori da D O R t o col l ec ta s up po rtob l i gat i on ; and t hat5

the c ol l e c t i on e f

f or t s r e s ul t e d f

r om c om put e rgl i t c he s a nd w e r e the r e f or e not w illf u l. O n 3 N ov em ber 200 3, the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthe F l ori da D O R vi ol at ed the aut om at i c s t ay and t he dam ages w er e a ctual , no tpu ni t i ve. T he court , ho w ever , va c a t e d the a tt orne y ’ s f e e s a w a r d a nd r e m a nde d t o the ba nkrupt c y c our tt o pr ovi de a n e vi de nt i a ry ba s i s f

ori t . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o r e m a nde d the c a s e t o the ba nkrupt c y c our tf

orthe de t e r m i na t i on a s t o w he the rthe de btw a s i n the na tur e of s uppor t , a nd the r e f

or e nondi s c ha r ge a bl e . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d the F l or i da D O R ’ s “ prop erty of the es t at e” ar gu m ent , bu tfoun d that“ O m i ne’ s i ncom e, w hi ch the [ F l or i da D O R ] a tt e m pt e d t o ga rni s h pos t - c onf i r m a t i on, i s e s s e nt i a l t o the D ebt ors’ abi l i ty t o m ake pl an paym ent s a nd there fore i s e st at e property t o w hi ch th e [ F lo r id a D O R ] is n o t e n title d .” R 1 , 2 - 4 a t 6 . T he F l ori da D O R appeal ed the 20 03 order, and w e a ff i rm ed the di stri ct c our t ’ s or de ri n a 2004 unpubl i s he d opi ni on. W e de c l i ne d t o a ddr e s s the F l or i da D O R ’ s “ pr ope r ty of

the e s t a t e ” a r gum e nt , f

i ndi ng tha ti tw a s notr a i s e d be f or e the ba nkrupt c y c our t , butothe rw i s e a f f i r m e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rf i ndi ng tha tthe F l ori da D O R vi ol at ed the aut om at i c s t ay and rem andi ng the ca se t o the bank rupt cy c o u r t.6

B ef ore the bank rupt cy courtdeci ded t he re m anded i ss ues, the O m i nes f i l ed ne w m ot i ons f

ors a nc t i ons on a ddi t i ona l a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of the a ut om a t i c s t a y f

or c onduc ts i m i l a rt o the F l or i da D O R ’ s e a r l i e rtr a ns gr e s s i ons . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the O m i nes a l l eged thatthe F l ori da D O R had sentanot her not i ce of past -due supp ort t o the O m i ne s i n A ugus t2003 a nd a nothe rc ol l e c t i on l e tt e ri n O c t obe r2004 r e ga r di ng the H a w a i i de bt . W i th ne w m ot i ons f i l e d a ga i ns tthe F l or i da D O R a tthe bank rupt cy courtl evel , the F l ori da D O R ra i se d m any of the sa m e i ss ues i tra i se d re gardi ng the fi rs tcol l ec t i on l ett er s, i ncl ud i ng the “ prop erty of the es t at e” ar gu m ent , w hi ch w e hel d w as no tra i se d p roperl y the l as tt i m e the part i es w er e a t the bank rupt cy court . T he bank rupt cy courtaddres se d b oth the re m anded i ss ues a n d th e n e w m o tio n s in th e s a m e 2 0 0 5 o r d e r . T h e 2 0 0 5 b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t o r d e ra w a r d e d $ 1 2 ,7 4 0 in f e e s a n d $ 1 7 5 .4 5 in co st s. T h e b an k ru p t cy co u rtal so co n cl u d ed th atth e H aw ai i d eb tw as “ not i n the nature of s up po rtand, there fore , [w as ] di sc hargeabl e. ” R 1, 1-3 at2. T he order the n a ddr e s s e d the tw o a ddi t i ona l ne w m ot i ons f ors a nc t i ons tha ta l l e ge d tha tthe F l or i da D O R ha d s e nta not i c e of pa s t - due s uppor tt o the O m i ne s a nd a c ol l e c t i on l e tt e r . T he ba nkrupt c y c our tf ound tha tboth l e tt e r s c ons t i tut e d w i l l f ul vi ol a t i ons of th e au t o m at i c st ay an d aw ard ed $ 1 0 4 5 . 1 2 i n actu al d am ag es, $ 2 , 0 0 0 i n san ct i o n s, an d $ 8 8 5 in atto rn ey ’s fe es . T h e b an k ru p tcy c o u rt d isp o se d o f th e F lo rid a D O R ’s7

“p r o p e r ty o f

th e e s ta te ” a r g u m e n t b y a g r e e in g w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a n a ly s is in i t s 200 3 o rder . T he F l or i da D O R a ga i n appe a l e d t o the di s tr i c tc ourt . R e ga r di ng di sc hargeabi l i ty, the di stri ctcourthel d thatthe pert i nenti ss ue w as w hether, un der fe d er al law , th e H aw aii d eb t w as in th e n atu re o f s u p p o rt, n o t w h eth erH aw aii’ s s t a t e l a w s c ons i de ri ta s s uc h. B a s e d on the l a c k of e vi de nc e pr ovi de d by the F lo rid a D O R th at th e H aw aii d eb t w as in th e n atu re o f s u p p o rt an d O m in e’s t es t i m on y thatthe H aw ai i debtw as no ti n the nature of s up po rt , the di stri ctcourt a f f i r m e d the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tthe H a w a i i de btw a s noti n the n a tu r e o f s u p p o r t a n d w a s th e r e f o r e d is c h a r g e a b le . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o h e ld , p u r s u a n t to th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in C entra l V i rgi ni a C om m un i ty C ol l ege v. K at z, 54 6 U . S . 35 6, 12 6 S . C t . 99 0 (20 06 ), tha ta c t i ons t o f

or c e a c r e di t ort o honorthe a ut om a t i c s t a y a r e the ty pe s of p r o c e e d in g s n e c e s s a ry to e f f e c tu a te th e C o u r t’s in re m j uri sdi ct i on and, there fore , the F l ori da D O R coul d n otas se rtsovere i gn i m m un i ty. T he di stri ctcourtthen tu rn e d to th e F lo r id a D O R ’s c h a lle n g e to th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s f a ilu r e to ap p ly the l i m i t at i on s s etforth i n 1 1 U . S . C . § 1 06 (a )( 3), w hi ch proh i bi t s pun i t i ve dam ages an d l i m i t s att o rn ey’ s fees an d co st s. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t w e h e ld th a t § 10 6(a) w as an un const i tut i on al att em ptt o abrog at e s t at e s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty i n In8

re C row , 39 4 F . 3d 91 8, 92 1-24 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( per c uri am ). T he di stri ctcourt the n he l d tha te ve n i f

§ 106( a ) ( 3) w e r e vi abl e a f t e rI n r e C r ow , C ongr e s s w oul d not h a v e i n t e n d e d i tt o b e ap p l i c a b l e i n a c a s e s u c h a s th i s – wh e r e th e F l o r i d a DO R fi l ed a proof of cl ai m , w ai vi ng sovere i gn i m m un i ty–as op po se d t o si tuat i on s w here th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s d r a g g e d in to c o u r t v ia ab r o g a tio n o f th e irs o v e r e ig n im m u n ity . F i nal l y, the courtre

j ec t ed the F l ori da D O R ’ s a rgum entthatthe bank rupt cy c our te rr e d by f

a i l i ng t o f

i nd tha tthe F l or i da D O R ’ s de btc ol l e c t i on e f f or t s m e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s f

orthe e xc e pt i on i n 11 U . S . C . § 362( b) ( 2) ( B ) , w hi c h s t a t e s tha tthe a ut om a t i c s t a y doe s notba rthe c ol l e c t i on of a dom e s t i c s uppor tobl i ga t i on f r om pr ope r ty tha ti s notpr ope r ty of the e s t a t e . T he F l or i da D O R a s s e r t e d tha tupon the f i l i n g o f th e O mi n e s ’ p e t i t i o n , a l l O mi n e ’ s f u tu r e e a rn i n g s a n d o th e ra s s e t s b e c a me p r o p e r ty o f

th e e s ta te , b u t u p o n c o n f ir m a tio n o f

th e C h ap te r1 3 p la n a ll a s s e ts be y ond the a m ount s ne e de d t o m a ke the pl a n pa y m e nt s r e - ve s t e d i n O m i ne . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e

j e c t e d thi s a r gum e nt , r e a s oni ng tha tthe H a w a i i de btw a s noti n the n a tu r e o f s u p p o r t, b u t th e n w e n t o n to c o n c lu d e th a t th e F lo r id a D O R ’s “p r o p e r ty of the e s t a t e ” a r gum e ntw a s m e r i t l e s s be c a us e the c ol l e c t i on l e tt e r s w e r e not l i m i t e d a s t o the i rt a r ge t . I n othe rw or ds , the not i c e of pa s t - due s uppor ttha tthe F l ori da D O R se ntthrea t ened O m i ne w i th reperc ussi on s i f he di d n otpay the ent i re H a w a i i de bt , notj us tw ha t e ve rf r a c t i on m i ghtbe pa y a bl e f r om a s s e t s not9

c om m i tt e d t o the pl a n. A l s o, be c a us e the c l a i m a ga i ns tthe F l or i da D O R a r os e out of i t s e ff ort s t o col l ec ton the debtun der i t s proof of cl ai m , the di stri ctcourtagre ed w i th the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthi s c l a i m s a t i s f i e d the “ s a m e tr a ns a c t i on oroc c urr e nc e ” l a ngua ge of § 106( b) . A s a r e s ul t , the di s tr i c tc our ta f f i r m e d the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s or de r . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A. S t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w W e r e vi e w i s s ue s pr e s e nt i ng a que s t i on of l a w de n o v o . S ee In re T h o m as, 88 3 F . 2d 99 1, 99 4 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ). A ny error a s t o a fi nd i ng of fa cti s r evi ew ed us i ng a c l e a r l y e rr one ous s t a nda r d. I d. B . R e s J u d ic a ta A s det ai l ed i n the backgrou nd se ct i on s, the part i es have l i t i gat ed ea rl i er vi ol a t i ons of

the a ut om a t i c s t a y pr e vi ous l y , c ul m i na t i ng i n our2004 opi ni on that a f f i r m e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ruphol di ng the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha ta c t i ons by the F l or i da D O R vi ol a t e d the a ut om a t i c s t a y . T he c a s e i s now before us , i n p art , on an appeal fr om the bank rupt cy court ’ s det erm i nat i on that a ddi t i ona l s i m i l a ra c t i ons by the F l or i da D O R t a ke n w hi l e the f i r s tc a s e w a s on appe a l a l s o c ons t i tut e a vi ol a t i on of the a ut om a t i c s t a y , a nd, i n pa r t , on a n appe a l of th e is s u e s o r ig in a lly r e m a n d e d to th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t f r o m th e f ir s t c a s e .10

A p a r ty s e e k in g to in v o k e th e d o c tr in e o f r e s ju d ic a ta m u s t e s tab lis h its prop ri ety by s at i sf

yi ng four i ni t i al el em ent s: “ (1) the pri or deci si on m usthave been re nd er ed by a c ou rtof com pet entj uri sdi ct i on ; (2) there m usthave been a fi nal ju d g m e n t o n th e m e r its ; ( 3 ) b o th c a s e s m u s t in v o lv e th e s a m e p a r tie s o rth e ir pri vi es ; and (4) bo th cas es m usti nv ol ve the sa m e c ause s of a ct i on . ” I n re P i per A i r c r a f tC orp. , 244 F . 3d 1289, 1296 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T he O m i ne s a s s e r ttha tthe di stri ctcourtno t ed thatthe F l ori da D O R ar gu ed i n i t s f i rs tappeal t o the di stri ct c o u r t th a t it d id n o t s e e k c o lle c tio n f r o m p r o p e r ty o f

th e e s ta te b u t w e d e c lin e d to h e a rth a t a r g u m e n t, s ta tin g th a t it h a d n o t b e e n r a is e d b e f o r e th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t. A l though i n our2004 opi ni on w e a f f i r m e d the F l or i da D O R ’ s vi ol a t i on of the a ut om a t i c s t a y r e ga r di ng the l e tt e r s a ti s s ue i n the O m i ne s ’ i ni t i a l m ot i on f or sa nct i on s, the part i es ar e now before us fr om an appeal of no ton l y the re m anded i s s ue s , buta l s o a n appe a l of tw o s ubs e que ntm ot i ons f ors a nc t i ons f

i l e d a ga i ns tthe F l o ri d a D O R fo r ad d i t i o n al co l l ect i o n act i o n s th atth e b an k ru p t cy co u rth el d al so v io la te d th e a u to m a tic s ta y .

“ U nde rr e s j udi c a t a . . . a f i na l j udgm e nton the m e r i t s ba r s the pa r t i e s t o a pri or ac t i on fr om re -l i t i gat i ng a c ause of ac t i on thatw as or coul d h ave been ra i se d i n tha ta c t i on. ” I d. H e r e , how e ve r , the ne w m ot i ons f ors a nc t i ons c oul d notha ve be e n r a i s e d i n the f

i r s tc a s e be c a us e the tr a ns gr e s s i ons c om pl a i ne d of by theAlthough referenc ed in oral argument, the Omines failed to brief, a nd there forewaived, 2 whether collateral estoppel c ould stil l bar our review of whether the automatic stay

was violated. See F arrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1242 n.10 (11th Cir. 2003) (de emingwaived a n argument made only

in “passingref

erence”and not argued on the merits).

11 O m i ne s i n the ne w m ot i ons f ors a nc t i ons ha d noty e toc c ur r e d. S e e A pot e x, I nc . v. F D A , 393 F . 3d 210, 218 ( D . C . C i r . 2004) ( “ R e s j udi c a t a doe s notba rpa r t i e s f r om bri ng i ng cl ai m s bas ed on m at er i al fa ct s thatw er e noti n exi st ence w hen t hey b r o u g h tth e o r i g i n a l s u i t . ” ) . S i n c e th e f a c tu a l a l l e g a t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g th e two 2 a ddi t i ona l m ot i ons f

ors a nc t i ons a r e di s t i nc ta l l e ga t i ons of ne w vi ol a t i ons of

the aut om at i c s t ay , bo th cas es do no ti nv ol ve “ the sa m e c ause s of a ct i on . ” S ee In re P ip e r , 2 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 6 . C . S u b o rd i n at i o n o f S o v erei g n Im m u n i ty B o th p a r tie s a tte m p t to d e f in e th e c o n to u r s o f

th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s K a tz deci si on , i ss ued o nl y day s bef ore the di stri ctcourt ’ s hea ri ng . In K at z, the trust ee com m ence d p roce edi ng s i n b ankrup t cy courtt o rec ov eral l eged prefe re nt i al tran sf er s m ad e to se v er al in stitu ti o n s o f h ig h ered u ca ti o n p rio r to th e d eb to r’s bank rupt cy fi l i ng . 54 6 U . S . at35 6, 12 6 S . C t . at99 4-95 . T he i nst i tut i on s of hi gh er e duc a t i on f

i l e d m ot i ons t o di s m i s s , c l a i m i ng s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty . I d. a t___, 126 S . C t . at99 5. T he S up re m e C ou rtgrant ed ce rt i orar i t o con si der “ w hether C o n g r e s s ’ a tte m p t to a b r o g a te s ta te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity in 1 1 U .S .C . § 1 0 6 ( a ) is12

val i d. ” I d. (f

oo tno t e om i tt ed). Inst ea d, the C ou rtre ca stthe i ss ue and st at ed that “[ t]h e r e le v a n t q u e s tio n is n o t w h e th e rC o n g r e s s h a s ‘a b r o g a te d ’ S ta te s ’ im m u n ity i n pr oc e e di ngs t o r e c ove rpr e f e r e nt i a l tr a ns f

e r s . S e e 11 U . S . C . § 106( a ) . T he que s t i on, r a the r , i s w he the rC ongr e s s ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tS t a t e s s houl d be a m e na bl e t o s uc h pr oc e e di ngs i s w i thi n the s c ope of i t s pow e r[ unde rthe B a nkrupt c y C l a us e ] . ” I d. a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1005 ( f ootnot e om i tt e d) . T he S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed thatC on gres s’ s det erm i nat i on i s w i thi n such p ow er , e xpl a i ni ng “ tha tS t a t e s a gr e e d i n the pl a n of the C onve nt i on nott o a s s e r ta ny s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty de f e ns e the y m i ghtha ve ha d i n pr oc e e di ngs br oughtpur s ua nt t o ‘ L aw s on the subj ec tof B ankrup t ci es . ’ ” I d. at___, 12 6 S . C t . at10 04 . In ot her w ords, C on gres s’ s pow er , “ ei ther [ t o] tre atS t at es i n the sa m e w ay as other cr edi t ors . . . or exem ptthem fr om [the] op er at i on of [bankrup t cy ] l aw s . . . ar i se s f r o m th e B a n k ru p tc y C la u s e its e lf ; th e r e le v a n t ‘a b r o g a tio n ’ is th e o n e e f f e c te d in the pl a n of

the C onve nt i on, notby s t a tut e . ” I d. a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1005. K a t z he l d tha t11 U . S . C . § 106( a ) ’ s s t a tut or y a br oga t i on of s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m un i ty w as un nece ss ary t o aut ho ri ze the B ankrup t cy C ou rt ’ s j uri sdi ct i on ov er th e p r e f e r e n c e a v o id a n c e p r o c e e d in g s a t is s u e , a n d r e c o g n iz e d th a t h is to r ic a lly c our t s a dj udi c a t i ng di s put e s c onc e rni ng ba nkrupt s ’ e s t a t e s ha d the pow e rt o i s s ue anci l l ary order s t o enforce i t s i n rem j uri sdi ct i on , i ncl ud i ng grant i ng i n p er sonam13

re l i ef . Id. at___, 12 6 S . C t . at99 5, 10 00 -01. W hi l e the S up re m e C ou rtcl ar i fi ed tha ti tdi d “ notm e a n t o s ugge s ttha te ve ry l a w l a be l e d a ‘ ba nkrupt c y ’ l a w c oul d, c ons i s t e ntw i th the B a nkrupt c y C l a us e , pr ope r l y i m pi nge upon s t a t e s ove r e i gn im m u n ity,” it d id n o t d elin ea te, o th erth an au th o rizin g th e B an k ru p tcy C o u rt’s j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe pr e f e r e nc e a voi da nc e pr oc e e di ngs a ti s s ue i n K a t z , w he r e or how tha tl i ne w oul d be dr a w n. I d. a t___ n. 10, 126 S . C t . a t1005 n. 10. T he a c t i on by the bank rupt cy courti n thi s c as e now l aunches us i nt o the re m ai ni ng gray ar ea a s t o w ha tpow e rpr ovi de d by the ba nkrupt c y c ode c a nnotbe us e d a ga i ns tthe S t at e. T he F l or i da D O R a r gue s tha tK a t z r e c ogni z e d a w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty l i m i t e d t o c or e ba nkrupt c y i s s ue s , i nc l udi ng the de t e r m i na t i on of d is c h a r g e a n d th e m a r s h a lin g o f e s ta te a s s e ts , b u t d id n o t e x te n d to a llo w p u b lic fund s hel d b y ast at e tre as ury t o b e a tri sk t o b enef i tan i nd i vi du al . T he O m i nes e s s e nt i a l l y a r gue tha tK a t z ’ s “ a nc i l l a ry or de r ” the ory i s br oa d e nough t o pr e c l ude the F l ori da D O R fr om as se rt i ng i m m un i ty a s adefe nse t o any proceedi ng grou nd ed o n a p r o v is io n o f

th e B a n k ru p tc y C o d e o rth a t a f f e c ts p r o p e r ty o f

th e d e b to re s ta te . S e e id . a t _

__ , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 1 0 0 0 . C our t s ha ve l ong r e c ogni z e d tha t“ [ t ] he a ut om a t i c s t a y i s f unda m e nt a l t o the r e or ga ni z a t i on pr oc e s s . . . . ” S m a l l B us . A dm i n. v. R i ne ha r t , 887 F . 2d 165, 16814

( 8 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . B a s ic b a n k ru p tc y d o c tr in e p o s its th a t a b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s a c tio n s in p r o te c tin g th e a u to m a tic s ta y s te m s f r o m th e n e e d to p r e v e n t ab u s iv e d e b t- c o lle c tio n p r a c tic e s . T he bank rupt cy proces se s of proof, a llo w a n c e , a n d d is tr ib u tio n a r e a ll f u n d a m e n ta lly a b o u t th e a d ju d ic a tio n o f

in te r e s ts c l a i m e d i n a r e s a nd a r e a l l i ne xtr i c a bl y i nt e r tw i ne d. A s the K at z c ou rt ack n o w l ed g ed , “ [c] ri t i cal featu res o f ev ery b an k ru p t cy p ro ceed i n g are th e ex erci se of e xc l us i ve j ur i s di c t i on ove ra l l of the de bt or ’ s pr ope r ty , the e qui t a bl e di s tr i but i on of thatprop erty a m on g the debt or’ s c re di t ors, and t he ul t i m at e di sc harge thatgi ves the debt or a ‘ fr es h st art ’ . . . . ” 546 U . S . at___, 12 6 S . C t . at99 6. K at z m ade c l ea r tha t , “ [ i ] n r a t i f

y i ng the B a nkrupt c y C l a us e , the S t a t e s a c qui e s c e d i n a s ubor di na t i on of w ha t e ve rs ove r e i gn i m m uni ty the y m i ghtothe rw i s e ha ve a s s e r t e d i n pr oc e e di ngs ne c e s s a ry t o e f

f e c tua t e the i n r e m j ur i s di c t i on of the ba nkrupt c y c our t s . ” I d. , 126 S . C t. a t 1 0 0 5 . A b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s a u th o r ity to is s u e c o m p u ls o ry o r d e r s to f a c i l i t a t e the a dm i ni s tr a t i on a nd di s tr i but i on of the r e s f l ow s f r om tha tj ur i s di c t i on and, as such, do es no ti m pl i ca t e aS t at e’ s s ov er ei gn ty i n the sa m e w ay as other ki nds of j ur i s di c t i on, e ve n w he r e the or de r s t a ke the f or m of m one y da m a ge a w a r ds agai nsta S t at e. W hi l e m ot i ons f orc ont e m pta nd s e e ki ng s a nc t i ons tha ti nc l ude att orney’ s f

ee s a nd cost s f

or vi ol at i ng the aut om at i c s t ay m ay re se m bl e m on ey da m a ge l a w s ui t s i n f

o rm , i ti s thei r f

unc t i on thati s c ri t i ca l , and t hei r f unc t i on is toBlack’s L aw Dic tionary define s “anc illary” as “ supplementary .” See Richa rd L oeb, 3 State Sovereign Immunity : Ba nkruptcy I s Special, 14 AM . B A N KR . I N ST . L. REV . 201, 230-31 15 fa ci l i t at e the i n rem proceedi ng s thatform the foun dat i on of bank rupt cy . S ee In re B ur ke , 146 F . 3d 1313, 1319 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( “ W e c onc l ude tha tthe s ubs t a nc e of the H ea dri cks’ ac t i on [a l l egi ng thatthe G eorgi a D epar tm entof R evenue vi ol at ed th e d i sch arg e i n

j u n ct i o n b y sen d i n g a d em an d l ett er fo r u n p ai d st at e i n co m e t ax es] i s am ot i on t o enforce the bank rupt cy court ’ s aut om at i c s t ay order. ”) . A s a r e s u lt, w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t, p u r s u a n t to K a tz , a c tio n s to forc e acr edi t or t o h on or the aut om at i c s t ay ar e the types of “ proceedi ng s nec es sa ry t o eff ec tuat e the i n rem j uri sdi ct i on of the bank rupt cy court [] , ” a nd that , there fore , the F l or i da D O R m a y nota s s e r ts ove r e i gn i m m uni ty he r e . S e e 546 U . S . a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1005. A nd w hi l e the F l or i da D O R i ns i s t s tha tthe K a t z de c i s i on s houl d be r e a d na rr ow l y , the C our t ’ s br oa d l a ngua ge m a ke s c l e a rtha t“ the j uri sdi ct i on of court s a dj ud i ca t i ng ri gh t s i n the bank ruptes t at e i ncl ud e[ s] the po w er t o i s s ue c om pul s ory or de r s t o f a c i l i t a t e the a dm i ni s tr a t i on a nd di s tr i but i on of the r e s . ” I d. a t___, 126 S . C t . a t996. I n f a c t , i n hol di ng tha tthe S t a t e s c oul d not a s s e r tthe i rs ove r e i gn i m m uni ty t o de f e a tpr e f e r e nc e r e c ove ry pr oc e e di ngs , the C our ti n K a t z di d notl i m i ti t s de c i s i on by s i ngl i ng outa ny othe rs pe c i f i c ty pe s of a n c illa ry b a n k ru p tc y p r o c e e d in g s th a t r e m a in s u b je c t to th e S ta te s ’ E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity . W e h o ld th a t th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s a n c illa ry o r d e rto 3(2006) ( discussing thebroad sc ope of Katz). 16

e nf or c e a n a ut om a t i c s t a y , w hi c h i s one of the f unda m e nt a l de bt orpr ot e c t i ons p ro v id ed b y th e b an k ru p tcy law s, o p er ates fr ee an d clea r o f th e F lo rid a D O R ’s c la im o f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity . I ti s w e l l s e tt l e d tha ta pa ne l of thi s c our tm a y de pa r tf

r om c i r c ui tpr e c e de nt ba s e d on a n i nt e r ve ni ng opi ni on of the S upr e m e C our ttha tunde r m i ne s the pr i or p reced en t . U n i t ed S t at es v . D en n i s, 7 8 6 F . 2 d 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 4 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ). A s a r e s ul tof the S upr e m e C our t ’ s opi ni on i n K a t z , i ti s ne c e s s a ry t o poi ntouttha tour p r e - K a tz r e a s o n in g o f

I n r e C r o w , 3 9 4 F .3 d a t 9 2 2 , in v a lid a tin g § 1 0 6 ( a ) , in p a r t, on the ba s i s tha tC ongr e s s m a y nota br oga t e s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty by l e gi s l a t i on pa s s e d pur s ua ntt o i t s A r t i c l e I pow e r s , i s no l onge rgood l a w . S e e 546 U . S . a t___, 126 S . C t . a t996 ( a c know l e dgi ng tha ts t a t e m e nt s i n S e m i nol e T r i be of F l ori da v. F l ori da, 51 7 U . S . 44 , 72 , 11 6 S . C t . 11 14 , 11 32 (199 6), re fl ec t ed an e rr one ous a s s um pt i on tha ti t s hol di ng tha t“ A r t i c l e I c a nnotbe us e d t o c i r c um ve nt the c ons t i tut i ona l l i m i t a t i ons pl a c e d upon f e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on, ” w oul d appl y t o the B ankrup t cy C l ause ). M or e ove r , a s w e s ha l l di s c us s , e ve n w i thoutK a t z ’ s pr onounc e m e nt r e ga r di ng s t a t e a br oga t i on of s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty unde rthe B a nkrupt c y C l a us e , theIn resolvingthe issues in this case, wefind it nece ssary to addre ss arguments reg arding 4 both the Florida

DOR’s subordination and w aiver of sovereign immunity . First, in Katz, one party, the Virg inia Milit ary Institut e (“VMI ”), like theFlorida DOR, also filed proof

of claim. Respondent Katz made this point in his response to the Petitioner’s writ for cer tiorari when urg ingtheCourt

to de ny c e rtiorarion

theba sis that “ Virg ini a ’sso vere ign immunity in t his bankruptc y

casehas been waived, a

nd . . . [t ]hus, this case doe s not present the que stion on which Petitioners seek cer tiorari. Whether Congress c an abrog ate Virg inia’s immunity is not at issue beca

use that immunity

has been waived here.”Respondent’s B rief in Opposition at 4, Katz, 546 U.S. 346, 126 S. C t. 990; see also Tra nscript of Oral Argument at 23 (discussing VM I ’swaiver) . D e sp itetheproo f o f c laim f ile d o n b e half

of on eof thepetition e rsin t

heKatz case , the Supreme Court still granted c ertiora ri and a nswere d the question of abrog ation under theB ank ru ptcy Cla us e . Se c on d, wefind

it n e c e ssa

ry to u nd e rt akean a

nalysis of theKatz c a se be c a us eof its imp lic atio ns fo r our

c a se law re g arding§ 1 06 (a), whic h th epa rtie s p ut in dispute reg ardingthe limitations set forth in subsec tion (a)( 3). 17 F l or i da D O R f

i l e d a pr oof

of c l a i m i n thi s c a s e , w hi c h r a i s e s i s s ue s of w a i ve rof so v erei g n i m m u n i ty. 4 D . W ai v er o f S o v erei g n Im m u n i ty

“ [B ] y f i l i ng a proof of cl ai m i n [a] debt ors’ . . . bank rupt cy proceedi ng s, [a ] S t at e w ai v e[s] i t s so v erei g n i m m u n i ty fo r p u rp o ses o f th e ad j u d i cat i o n o f th o se c l a i m s . ” I n r e B ur ke , 146 F . 3d 1313, 1319 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . A S t a t e ’ s w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty m us tbe e xpr e s s a nd une qui voc a l , a nd ge ne r a l l y c our t s ha ve s e toutthr e e e l e m e nt s t o a na l y z e i n de t e r m i ni ng i f the S t a t e w a i ve d s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty by pa r t i c i pa t i ng i n the ba nkrupt c y c a s e . I n r e S tr a i ght , 143 F . 3d 1387, 13 90 (10t h C i r. 19 98 ). T he fi rs tel em entl i m i t s the w ai ver t o cas es w here a gove rnm e nt a l uni tf

i l e s a pr oof

of c l a i m . I d. T he s e c ond e l e m e ntr e qui r e s tha tthe cl ai m agai nstthe go vernm ent al un i tm ustbe prop erty of the es t at e. Id. T he thi rd e l e m e ntr e qui r e s tha tthe c l a i m a r i s e s outof the s a m e tr a ns a c t i on oroc c ur r e nc e . I d.18

T he pa r t i e s a gr e e tha tthe f i r s te l e m e nt , the gove rnm e nt a l uni tf i l i ng a pr oof

of c la im , h a s b e e n m e t. T h e p a r tie s d is a g r e e a s to th e s e c o n d a n d th ir d e le m e n ts . T he s e c ond e l e m e ntr e qui r e s us t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe c l a i m a ga i ns tthe F l or i da D O R i s pr ope r ty of the e s t a t e . T he F l or i da D O R a r gue s tha ta ny w a i ve rof s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity r e c o g n iz e d b y th e f ilin g o f a p r o o f o f c la im is lim ite d to a c tio n s r e la te d to th e c la im h e ld b y th e b a n k ru p tc y e s ta te a n d d o e s n o t e x te n d to the i ns t a nta c t i on br oughtby the de bt or . I ta s s e r t s tha tupon c onf i r m a t i on of

the C h ap te r1 3 p la n , a ll a s s e ts b e y o n d th e a m o u n ts n e e d e d to m a k e th e p la n p a y m e n ts w e r e notpr ope r ty of

the e s t a t e be c a us e the y ha d r e - ve s t e d i n the de bt or , a nd, th e r e f o r e , it d id n o t v io la te th e a u to m a tic s ta y b y s e e k in g to g a rn is h th o s e w a g e s . T he a ut om a t i c s t a y doe s notba r“ c ol l e c t i on of a l i m ony , m a i nt e na nc e , or s u p p o r t f r o m p r o p e r ty th a t is n o t p r o p e r ty o f th e e s ta te .” 1 1 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) .

“ [ P ] r ope r ty ne c e s s a ry f

orthe e xe c ut i on of

the pl a n . . . r e m a i n[ s ] pr ope r ty of the e s t a t e ” upon c onf

i r m a t i on of

a C hapt e r13 pl a n. T e l f a i rv. F i r s tU ni on M or t ga ge C orp. , 216 F . 3d 1333, 1340 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( a dopt i ng the “ e s t a t e tr a ns f or m a t i on ap p r o a c h ” ) . T h e F lo r id a D O R ’s le tte r s a t is s u e w e r e n o t lim ite d a s to th e irta r g e t, th ati s, th e l ett ers so u g h tco l l ect i o n as t o O m i n e’ s p o st -p et i t i o n earn i n g s, n o tj u st w ha t e ve rf

r a c t i on of

O m i ne ’ s i nc om e tha tm i ghtbe pa y a bl e f r om a s s e t s not19

c o m m itte d to th e p la n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a g r e e th a t O m in e ’s in c o m e is e s s e n tia l to th e O m i n es’ ab i l i ty t o m ak e p l an p aym en t s an d th erefo re i s est at e p ro p erty. T he thi r d e l e m e ntr e qui r e s tha tthe c l a i m a r i s e outof the s a m e tr a ns a c t i on or oc c urr e nc e . T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d w i th the ba nkrupt c y c our ttha tbe c a us e the c l a i m a ga i ns tthe F l or i da D O R a r os e outof the F l or i da D O R ’ s e f

f or t s t o c ol l e c ton the debtun derl yi ng i t s proof of cl ai m , the “ sa m e tra nsac t i on or occurre nce” re qu i re m entw as m et . O ur rul i ng i n In re B urke supp ort s thi s det erm i nat i on and, as a r e s ul t , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c onc l us i on w a s pr ope r . S e e 146 F . 3d a t1318 n. 10 ( c onc l udi ng “ tha tthe de bt or s ’ a c t i ons f orvi ol a t i on of

the a ut om a t i c s t a y a nd d isch ar g e in

ju n ctio n ‘arise o u t o f th e s am e tra n sa ctio n o r o cc u rr en ce ’ as th e S tate’s proo fs of cl ai m ”) . E . V i ol at i on of the A ut om at i c S t ay T h e F lo rid a D O R ’s re m ain in g ar g u m en t reg ar d in g th e d istrict co u rt’s af fi rm ance of the bank rupt cy court ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe F l ori da D O R vi ol at ed the a ut om a t i c s t a y i s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y s hi f t e d the bur de n of s h o w in g a v io la tio n o f

th e a u to m a tic s ta y to th e c r e d ito r , in s te a d o f th e d e b to r . M ul t i pl e bankrup t cy court s have hel d thatthe “ [p] l ai nt i ff [/ debt or] bear s the bu rden of prov i di ng thatshe i s e nt i t l ed t o d am ages un der s ec t i on 36 2(h). ” S ee , e. g. , In re L or d, 270 B . R . 787, 794 ( B kr t c y . M . D . G a . 1998) ( c i t i ng s i m i l a rhol di ngs ) . T he20

F l or i da D O R a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y s hi f t e d the bur de n f

r om the d e b to rto th e F lo r id a D O R in h o ld in g th a t th e F lo r id a “D O R f a ile d to s h o w th a t its ac t i on s w er e t aken agai nstprop erty thatw as no tprop erty of the es t at e. ” R 1, 23 at 1 2 . W hi l e the w or di ng of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e c ond or de rappe a r s t o s ugge s tthe bu rden w as i m prop er l y s hi ft ed, i n i t s f i rs torder i n the pri or ca se –u nd ert aki ng an a na l y s i s of

the F l or i da D O R ’ s i de nt i c a l “ pr ope r ty of the e s t a t e ” a r gum e nt–the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed, w i tho utany i m prop ershi ft i ng of the bu rden, that “O m in e ’s in c o m e , w h ic h th e D .O .R . a tte m p te d to g a rn is h p o s t- c o n f ir m a tio n , is e s s e n tia l to th e D e b to r s ’ a b ility to m a k e p la n p a y m e n ts a n d th e r e f o r e is e s ta te pr ope r ty t o w hi c h the D . O . R . i s note nt i t l e d. ” R 1, 2- 4 a t5- 6. F ur the r m or e , the ba nkrupt c y c our t , w i thouti m pr ope r l y s hi f t i ng the bur de n, c onc l ude d tha tthe Fl o r i d a D O R v i o l a t e d th e a u t o ma t i c s t a y w h e n i tf o u n d th a tth e “ [ d ] e b t o r s ’ i n c o me i s c on si dere d ess ent i al t o thei r abi l i ty t o m ake pl an paym ent s a nd , there fore , re m ai ns es t at e property. ” R 1, 1-3 at8 (ci t i ng T el fa i r, 21 6 F . 3d at13 40 ). W e a gree w ith th e b an k ru p tcy c o u rt’s an alys is, an d , th er ef o re , aff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s u ltim a te h o ld in g b a s e d o n th e c o rr e c t a n a ly s is u s e d b y th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t. F . A w a r d L i m i t a t i ons i n 11 U . S . C . § 106( a ) ( 3)21

T he F l or i da D O R a l s o a s s e r t s tha tthe l i m i t a t i ons f ound i n § 106( a ) ( 3) shou l d app l y t o the bank rupt cy court ’ s orderaw ar di ng a m on ey re covery and t hat the di s tr i c tc our ti gnor e d the pl a i n l a ngua ge of the s t a tut e . T he r e l e va ntt e xtof 11 U . S . C . § 1 0 6 (a) st at es: N otw i ths t a ndi ng a n a s s e r t i on of s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty , s ove r e i gn im m u n ity is a b r o g a te d a s to a g o v e rn m e n ta l u n it to th e e x te n t s e t f o r th i n thi s s e c t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o the f ol l ow i ng: (1) S ec t i on s 105 , 10 6 . . . 36 2 . . . of thi s t i t l e.

. . . (3 ) T h e co u rtm ay i ssu e ag ai n sta g o v ern m en t al u n i tan o rd er, p ro cess, or j ud gm entun der s uch sec t i on s or the F eder al R ul es of B ankrup t cy P roce du re , i ncl ud i ng an order or j ud gm entaw ar di ng a m on ey re covery , bu tno ti ncl ud i ng an aw ar d o f pun i t i ve dam ages . S uch o rder orj udgm e ntf

orc os t s orf

e e s unde rthi s t i t l e orthe F e de r a l R ul e s of B a nkrupt c y P r oc e dur e a ga i ns ta ny gove rnm e nt a l uni ts ha l l be c ons i s t e ntw i th the pr ovi s i ons a nd l i m i t a t i ons of s e c t i on 24 12 (d)( 2)(A ) of t i t l e 28 [defi ni ng ‘ fe es and o ther e xp ense s’ un der th e E q u al A cc es s to Ju stice A ct (“E A JA ”) ]. T h e b an k ru p t cy co u rtfo u n d th atth e p ro v i si o n s an d l i m i t at i o n s o f E A JA r e f e r e nc e d i n § 106( a ) ( 3) appl y onl y i n c i r c um s t a nc e s of f or c e d a br oga t i on of s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity p r o te c tio n , n o t in s itu a tio n s s u c h a s th is , w h e r e in th e s ta te a ge nc y c ons e nt s t o the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on thr ough the f i l i ng of a pr oof o f cl ai m as d et ai l ed i n § 1 0 6 (b ). T h e b an k ru p t cy co u rtreaso n ed th at“ [i ] f C o n g ress ha d i nt e nde d the l i m i t a t i on of the E A J A t o appl y t o othe rs e c t i ons of the B ankrup t cy C od e, i tw ou l d n othave pl ac ed the re fe re nce t o the E A JA sol el y und er22

S ec t i on 10 6(a) . . . . N o l i m i t at i on s i m po se d b y the E A JA ar e e xt ended t o . . . [the] F l ori da D O R , by S ec t i on 10 6(b). T here fore , the C ou rtm ustfol l ow the no rm al rul e s i n a w a r di ng f

e e s a nd c os t s . ” R 1, 1- 3 a t5. T he di s tr i c tc our tl a r ge l y a gr e e d, addi ng thati tw as pers uaded b y the structure a nd hi st ory of the se ct i on that C ongr e s s i nt e nde d f

orgove rnm e nt s tha tf

i l e d pr oof

s of c l a i m t o be tr e a t e d l i ke or di na ry c r e di t or s i n r e ga r d t o thos e c l a i m s , a s the y ha d be e n pr i ort o the r e s tr ic tio n s a d d e d in th e c u rr e n t § 1 0 6 ( a ) . W e a g r e e w ith th e F lo r id a D O R th a t b a s e d o n th e p la in te x t o f 1 1 U .S .C . § 10 6(a) (3), the aw ar d l i m i t at i on s f ou nd i n § 10 6(a) (3) a re appl i cabl e i n thi s c as e. S ec t i on 10 6(a) (3) c l ea rl y s t at es that“ [t ] he courtm ay i ss ue agai nsta gov ernm ent al uni ta n or de r. . . unde rs uc h s e c t i ons . ” T he phr a s e “ s uc h s e c t i ons ” i n § 106( a ) ( 3) un am bi gu ou sl y r ef

er s t o the l i stof se ct i on s i n § 10 6(a) (1), w hi ch i ncl ud es an order pur s ua ntt o § 362, the s e c t i on tha ta ddr e s s e s the a ut om a t i c s t a y , a nd § 105, the s e c t i on tha ta ddr e s s e s the pow e rof the c our tt o i s s ue or de r s ne c e s s a ry t o c a rry out the prov i si on s of the B ankrup t cy C od e. A pl ai n rea di ng of § 1 06 (a )( 3) re qu i re s tha t“ s uc h or de rorj udgm e ntf orc os t s orf

e e s unde rthi s t i t l e ” s ha l l be c ons i s t e nt w i th the pr ovi s i ons a nd l i m i t a t i ons of 28 U . S . C . § 2412( d) ( 2) ( A ) a nd m a y not in c lu d e a n a w a r d o f

p u n itiv e d a m a g e s .23

T h e d is s e n t c o n c lu d e s th a t b e c a u s e th e “s ta tu to ry a b r o g a tio n s c h e m e ” is u n n e c e s s a ry , th e a w a r d lim ita tio n s f o u n d in s u b s e c tio n ( a ) ( 3 ) a r e n e c e s s a r ily i nappl i c a bl e . W e di s a gr e e . T w o i ni t i a l poi nt s he l p c ont e xtua l i z e ourc onc l us i on: 1) i n K at z, the S up re m e C ou rtdi d n otdecl ar e § 10 6 u ncon st i tut i on al , bu tra ther, h e ld o n ly th a t s ta tu to ry a b r o g a tio n is u n n e c e s s a ry in lig h t o f th e “‘a b r o g a tio n . . . e f f e c t e d i n the pl a n of

the C onve nt i on, ” 546 U . S . a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1005; a nd 2) K at z r ea ff

i rm ed C on gres s’ s pow er“ ei ther [ t o] tre atS t at es i n the sa m e w ay as other cr edi t ors i nsofaras concerns ‘ L aw s on the subj ec tof B ankrup t ci es ’ or exem ptthem f r om ope r a t i on of

s uc h l a w s . ” I d. a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1005. I n r e s ol vi ng the ap p lic a b ility o f

§ 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 3 ) u n d e rth e s e u n d is p u te d p r e m is e s , th e q u e s tio n , p o s tK a tz , is : e v e n th o u g h § 1 0 6 ( a ) ’s s ta tu to ry ab r o g a tio n f r a m e w o r k is u n n e c e s s a ry , is al l of § 1 06 (a ) nec es sa ri l y i napp l i cabl e? T hati s, do the aw ar d l i m i t at i on s i m po se d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 3 ) r e ma i n ? T h e d i ssen tp o si t s th ata co n t ex tu al read i n g o f th e st atu t o ry s c h e me i ne l uc t a bl y r e nde r s § 106( a ) ( 3) ’ s a w a r d l i m i t a t i ons i nappl i c a bl e . B uti tdoe s not nece ss ar i l y f

ol l ow , base d o n a pl ai n rea di ng of the t ex t , th a t s u b s e c tio n ( a ) ( 3 ) is devo i d o f a ny m ea ni ng and i napp l i cabl e now thatsubsec t i on (a )( 1) i s unn ec es sa ry t o abrog at e s t at e s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty her e, or thatenforci ng subsec t i on (a )( 3) af t er K at z i s a gai nstC on gres s’ s i nt ent–t o the cont ra ry , i ti s e nt i re l y c on si st entw i th such24

i nt e nt . S e e D odd v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 545 U . S . 353, 359, 125 S . C t . 2478, 2483 ( 2005) ( hol di ng tha tw he n the s t a tut e ’ s l a ngua ge i s pl a i n, the s ol e f unc t i on of

the court s, atl ea stw here the di sposi t i on re qu i re d b y the t exti s notabsurd, i s t o enforce it a c c o r d in g to its te r m s ) . T h e i ssu e o f C o n g ressi o n al i n t en ti s u n u su al i n th e co n t ex to f th i s case be c a us e K a t z dr a m a t i c a l l y a l t e r e d the a s s um pt i ons unde rw hi c h C ongr e s s ( a nd e ve n the S upr e m e C our t ) ha d be e n ope r a t i ng w i th r e s pe c tt o s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty a nd the B a nkrupt c y C ode . T ha ti s , unt i l K a t z , i tw a s notc l e a rtha t“ the S t a t e s a c qui e s c e d i n a s ubor di na t i on of w ha t e ve rs ove r e i gn i m m uni ty the y m i ght otherw i se have as se rt ed i n p roce edi ng s nec es sa ry t o eff ec tuat e the i n rem ju r is d ic tio n o f

th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r ts .” 5 4 6 U .S . a t _

__ , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 1 0 0 5 . I n f a c t, as Just i ce T ho m as no t es i n h i s K at z di ss ent , a m yr i ad of cas es , i ncl ud i ng H offm an v. C onne c t i c utD e pa r tm e ntof I nc om e M a i nt e na nc e , 492 U . S . 96, 109 S . C t . 2818 (198 9) (w hi ch prece ded and prom pt ed the 19 94 B ankrup t cy R ef orm A ct A me n d me n t s t o th e c u rr e n t§ 1 0 6 ) a n d Se mi n o l e Tr i b e , 5 1 7 U . S. a t7 2 - 7 3 , 1 1 6 S. C t . 1 1 3 2 -3 3 , i n d i cat ed o th erw i se. S ee i d . at___ , 1 2 6 S . C t . at1 0 0 7 -0 8 (T h o m as, J . , di s s e nt i ng) ( a r gui ng tha tS upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nti s r e pl e t e w i th l a ngua ge ba rr i ng a br oga t i on of

s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty unde rva r i ous c l a us e s i n § 8 of A rt i cl e I , i ncl ud i ng the B ankrup t cy C l ause ).25

T he l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory of the c ur r e nt§ 106 m a ke s c l e a rtha t§ 106’ s pr e s e nt statu to ry ab ro g atio n fr am ew o rk w as cr ea ted in re sp o n se to th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s rul i ng s “ thatthe S t at es and F eder al G ov ernm entar e notdeem ed t o h ave w ai ved th e i rs o v e r e i g n i m m u n i ty b y v i r tu e o f C o n g r e s s e n a c t i n g f

o r m e r§ 1 0 6 ( c ) . ” S e e H. C om m . on the Judi ci ary, B ankrup t cy R ef orm A ctof 19 94 , H . R ep. N o. 10 3-83 5, at 42 ( 1994) , r e pr i nt e d i n 1994 U . S . C . C . A . N . 1881, 3350- 51 ( s t a t i ng tha t§ 106

“ w ou l d eff

ec t i vel y overrul e tw o S up re m e C ou rtca se s [ i ncl ud i ng H offm an] that have hel d thatthe S t at es and F eder al G ov ernm entar e notdeem ed t o h ave w ai ved th e irs o v e r e ig n im m u n ity b y v ir tu e o f e n a c tin g s e c tio n 1 0 6 ( c ) ” ) . T h e b a c k d r o p to th e c r e a tio n o f

th e c u rr e n t § 1 0 6 w a s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in H o f f m a n . S e e id . H o f

f m a n r e m in d e d C o n g r e s s th a t “to a b r o g a te th e S ta te s ’ E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity f r o m s u it in f

e d e r a l c o u r t . . . C o n g r e s s m u s t m a k e its i nt e nt i on ‘ unm i s t a ka bl y c l e a ri n the l a ngua ge of the s t a tut e . ’ ” 492 U . S . a t101, 109 S . C t . a t2822 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he H of f m a n pl ur a l i ty r e f

r a i ne d f r om a na l y z i ng w he the rC ongr e s s ha d the pow e runde rA r t i c l e I t o a br oga t e the S t a t e s ’ s ove r e i gn i m m u n i ty, i d . , 4 9 2 U . S . at1 0 4 , 1 0 9 S . C t . at2 8 2 4 (“ S i n ce w e h o l d th atC o n g ress di d n otabrogat e E l eventh A m endm enti m m un i ty by e nact i ng § 1 06 (c ), w e nee d nota ddr e s s w he the ri tha d the a uthor i ty t o do s o unde ri t s ba nkrupt c y pow e r ” ) , a nd tw o Ju st i ces, each co n cu rri n g sep arat el y, ex p l i ci t l y st at ed th ei r v i ew th atC o n g ressJustice Scalia’ s rea soning in his Hoff man concurrence prevailed in Seminole Tribe , 5 wherein both the majority and dissentingopinions “ref lected a n assumption that the holding . . . would apply

to the Ba nkruptcy Clause.” SeeKatz, 546 U.S. at ___, 126 S. C t. at 996. Even Just ice Ma

rshall, writingfor the dissent, would have reverse d the Second Circuit’s 6 ruling“[b] eca

use Congress c learly

expressed its intent to authoriz e a ba nkruptcy court to issue a money judgment ag ainst a State . . . and be causeCongress has the a uthority under the Ba nkruptcy Clause to abrog ate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity ,” not bec ause the States’ had subordinated their sovereign immunity under theplan of the Convention. See Hoffma n, 492 U.S. at 106, 109 S. Ct . at 2825 (Mar shall, J ., dissenting) . 26 d id n o t h a v e th e p o w e rto a b r o g a te s ta te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity b y e n a c tin g a s ta tu te unde rA r t i c l e I . I d. , 492 U . S . a t105, 109 S . C t . 2824- 25 ( S c a l i a , J . , c onc urr i ng; O ’ C on no r, concurri ng ) ( concurri ng “ on the grou nd that[C on gres s] had n o p ow er t o [abrogat e s t at e s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty und eri t s] . . . A rt i cl e I [B ankrup t cy C l ause ] po w er s” ). 5 I n H o f f m a n , n o J u s tic e e v e n in tim a te d th a t th e S ta te s h a d s u b o r d in a te d th e ir sovere i gn i m m un i ty i n the m anner desc ri bed i n K at z. In l i gh tof H offm an, i tw as 6 e nt i r e l y r e a s ona bl e f

orC ongr e s s t o be l i e ve tha tS upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt “s u g g e s te d ” th a t C o n g r e s s m a k e its in te n t to w a iv e th e S ta te s ’ s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity

“ unm i s t a ke nl y c l e a r , ” a nd e s t a bl i s h the s t a tut or y a br oga t i on f r a m e w or k tha ti s the c urr e nt§ 106. S e e 140 C ong. R e c . H 10766 ( da i l y e d. A ug. 17, 1994) ( s t a t e m e ntof R e p. B r ooks ) ( a na l y z i ng the purpos e s be hi nd § 106’ s e na c tm e nta nd not i ng tha tthe S u p r e m e C o u r t “s u g g e s te d ” th a t “§ 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) lis t[ ] th o s e s e c tio n s o f title 1 1 w ith resp ectt o w h i ch so v erei g n i m m u n i ty i s ab ro g at ed ”). A s a co ro l l ary, i tw as al so27

natural for C on gres s, then, t o p l ac e i t s l i m i t at i on s on aw ar ds (s ub se ct i on (a )( 3)), in to th e f r a m e w o rk th e y b e lie v e d th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a d “s u g g e s te d .” S e e id . A s a r e s ul t , e ve n putt i ng a s i de ourc onc l us i on tha tthe pl a i n t e xta l one di c t a t e s the appl i c a t i on of the a w a r d l i m i t a t i ons i n s ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 3) , i n l i ghtof the ju risp ru d en ti al u n d er stan d in g o f s tate so v er eig n im m u n ity a t th e tim e o f § 1 0 6 ’s draf t i ng , w e f

i nd i tdi ff

i cul tt o con cl ud e thatC on gres s i nt ended t o i ncl ud e s uch aw ard l i m i t at i o n s o n ly w hen t he abrogat i on w as st atut ory butexcl ud e s uch l i m i t at i on s i f i tw as l at erre veal ed thatthe “ re l evant“ ‘ abrogat i on ’ [turned o utt o b e] the one e f

f e c t e d i n the pl a n of

the C onve nt i on[ . ] ” S e e K a t z , 546 U . S . a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1005. K a t z c l a r i f i e d the “ r e l e va nt‘ a br oga t i on[ . ] ’ ” S e e i d. I tdi d not u n d erm i n e C o n g ress’ s ab i l i ty t o l i m i taw ard s ag ai n stth e S t at es. S i nce the pl ai n t extof the l angu age i s app l i cabl e, w e a re l oathe t o i gn ore a w a r d lim ita tio n s th a t a r e w ith in C o n g r e s s ’s p o w e rto e n a c t a n d r e f u s e to ap p ly the m w he n the f

r a m e w or k tha tthe a w a r d l i m i t a t i ons w e r e pl a c e d i n w a s r e nde r e d, n o t u n c o n s titu tio n a l, b u t r a th e r , o n ly u n n e c e s s a ry . G iv e n th a t th e r e s u lt is n o t o n ly not“ a bs ur d, ” buta l i gne d w i th C ongr e s s ’ s i nt e nt , i ti s di f f i c ul tt o e s c ape the appl i c a t i on of

a pl a i n r e a di ng of

§ 106( a ) ( 3) tha tappl i e s i t s a w a r d l i m i t a t i ons t o a ba nkrupt c y c our tor de ri s s ue d pur s ua ntt o §§ 105 or362( h) . A l though § 106( a ) ( 1) ’ s a br oga t i on w a s unne c e s s a ry now tha tthe C ourtha s c l a r i f i e d tha tthe28

S t at es ac qu i es ce d i n a subo rdi nat i on of w hat eversovere i gn i m m un i ty they had th ro u g h th e C o n stitu ti o n al C o n v en ti o n , w e d o n o t rea d K atz to re n d er§ 1 0 6 (a )( 3 )’s l i m i t at i on s uncon st i tut i on al or i napp l i cabl e. B ec ause w e di sa gree abou tthe appl i cabi l i ty of § 10 6 p ost -K at z, w e di sa gree w i th the di s s e nt ’ s a l t e rna t i ve ba s i s f ora f f i r m i ng the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s a w a r d of puni t i ve da m a ge s a nd f

e e s i n e xc e s s of

the a w a r d l i m i t a t i ons r e f e r e nc e d i n § 106( a ) ( 3) a s w e l l . T he di s s e ntw oul d a l t e rna t i ve l y a f f i r m the a w a r ds ba s e d on the f a c t th a t th e F lo r id a D O R f ile d o f a p r o o f o f c la im h e r e , h e n c e w a iv in g its sovere i gn i m m un i ty. A l tho ug h n otprec edent i al , w e a gree w i th the re as on i ng i n In r e W a s h in g to n a n d I n r e F ly n n – th a t § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 3 ) lim its a w a r d s e v e n a g a in s t a g o v e rn m e n ta l u n it th a t file d a p r o o f o f c la im . S ee 18 4 B . R . 17 2, 17 5 (S . D . G a. 1 9 9 5 ) ( r e v e r s in g a w a r d s a g a in s t a g o v e rn m e n ta l u n it th a t f ile d a p r o o f

o f c la im b e c a u s e o f

th e l i m i t a t i o n s i m p o s e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 3 ) ) ; 1 8 5 B . R . 8 9 , 9 3 - 9 4 ( S . D. G a. 19 95 ) ( sa m e) . M oreover, the l i m i t at i on s i n sub se ct i on (a )( 3) appl y t o o rder s is s u e d p u r s u a n t to § 1 0 5 . S e e J o v e E n g ’g , I n c . v . I .R .S ., 9 2 F .3 d 1 5 3 9 , 1 5 5 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 96 ) ( “ [T ] he pl ai n m ea ni ng of [§ 10 6(a) (3)] re qu i re s a n aw ar d o f a tt orney f e e s u n d e rth e s t a tu t o ry p o we r s o f § 1 0 5 ( a ) t o b e c o n s i s t e n twi th § 2 4 1 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A) w hi ch defi nes tho se “ fe es and o ther e xp ense s” thatm ay be aw ar ded u nd er E A JA . ”) .29

A s a r e s ul t , the a tt orne y ’ s f e e s a nd c os t s a w a r d i m pos e d a ga i ns tthe F l or i da D O R is v a c a te d a n d r e m a n d e d f o ra d e te r m in a tio n o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s a n d c o s ts consi st entw i th the prov i si on s a nd l i m i t at i on s of s ec t i on 24 12 (d)( 2)(A ) a s r e f e r e nc e d i n § 106( a ) ( 3) . F ur the r m or e , w e va c a t e the a ddi t i ona l s a nc t i on a w a r d of $2000 a s i nva l i d i n l i ghtof the l i m i t a t i ons i n § 106( a ) ( 3) r e ga r di ng “ puni t i ve d a m a g e s .” G . D e b t D is c h a r g e a b ility 1 1 U .S .C . § 5 2 3 ( a ) ( 5 ) d is a llo w s d is c h a r g e o f a d e b t: t o a s pous e , f

or m e rs pous e , orc hi l d of the de bt or , f

ora l i m ony t o, m a i nt e na nc e f

or , ors uppor tof

s uc h s pous e orc hi l d, i n c onne c t i on w i th a se para t i on agre em ent , di vo rc e dec re e or other order of acourt o f r e c o r d , . . . b u t n o t to th e e x te n t th a t - - . . . (B ) su ch a d eb ti n cl u d es a l i ab i l i ty d esi g n at ed as al i m o n y, m ai nt enance, or supp ort , un l es s s uch l i abi l i ty i s a ctual l y i n the nature o f a lim o n y , m a in te n a n c e , o rs u p p o rt. W e ha ve he l d tha tf

e de r a l l a w , nots t a t e l a w , gove rns a di s c ha r ge a bi l i ty of d o m e s tic o b lig a tio n s d e te r m in a tio n . S e e I n r e H a rr e ll, 7 5 4 F .2 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 4 - 0 5 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 85 ). “ A debti s i n the nature of s up po rt , ” a nd there fore no nd i sc hargeabl e,

“ i f a tthe t i m e of i t s c re at i on the part i es i nt ended t he ob l i gat i on t o fun ct i on as s u p p o r t . . . .” C u m m in g s v . C u m m in g s , 2 4 4 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

“ [ T ] he pa r ty s e e ki ng t o hol d the de btnondi s c ha r ge a bl e ha s the bur de n of pr ovi ngIn a re c ognition

that f e deral, n ot s tatelaw, g ov e rn s a dis c ha rg e a bil ity of do me sti c 7 obligations determination, the Florida DOR also cites 42 U .S.C. § 656(b), that, it claims, dictates the state lawclassification be followed. 42 U.S.C. § 656(b), doe s not resolve the dispute, ho wever, be c a

us eit re quire s th eba

nk ru ptcy c ourt to m akethefac tual determinatio n a s to whether the debt is “in the nature of suppor t.” 30 by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence thatthe part i es i nt ended t he ob l i gat i on as supp ort. . . . ” I d. (c i t at i on and i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). T he F l ori da D O R , w hi ch ar gu ed thatthe debtw as no nd i sc hargeabl e, pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e t o the ba nkrupt c y c our ttha tthe H a w a i i de btw a s i n the na tur e of s uppor t . T he F l or i da D O R a l s o a s s e r t s tha tthe t e s t i m ony of the de bt or c l e a r l y s how e d the m oni e s ow e d w e r e f ors uppor tof

hi s w i f e a nd c hi l dr e n pa i d by the S t a t e of

H a w a i i . O m i ne t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe H a w a i i de btw a s noti n the na tur e of s uppor t . T he F l or i da D O R , how e ve r , pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e a s t o the i nt e ntof the part i es . Inst ea d, i tar gu es thatw e s ho ul d n otdi sr egar d H aw ai i an l aw thatprov i des tha tthe w e l f

a r e pa y m e nt s m a de i n c a s e s s uc h a s thi s one a r e s uppor tobl i ga t i ons a nd non- di s c ha r ge a bl e . T hough “ a c our tc a nnotr e l y s ol e l y on the l a be l us e d by 7 the part i es , ” s ee i d. , i nt entca nn otbe i m pu t ed or prov en w i th the i ntrodu ct i on of a s t a t e s t a tut e on appe a l . I n l i ghtof O m i ne ’ s t e s t i m ony tha ts uppor t e d a di s c ha r ge a bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on a nd the l a c k of e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d by the F l or i da D O R , the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y a f f i r m e d the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe H a w a ii d e b t w a s n o t in th e n a tu r e o f s u p p o r t, a n d w a s th e r e f o r e d is c h a r g e a b le .31 I I I . CONCL US I ON T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y uphe l d the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s di s c ha r ge of the supp ortob l i gat i on and p roperl y a ff i rm ed the bank rupt cy court ’ s det erm i nat i on that the F l or i da D O R vi ol a t e d the a ut om a t i c s t a y a nd, f ur the r m or e , tha tthe F l or i da D O R w as no tprot ec t ed by sovere i gn i m m un i ty. A s are sul t , w e AF F I RM the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de ra f

f i r m i ng the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tthe F l or i da D O R w a s noti m m une f r om the O m i ne s ’ s ui tf

ori t s vi ol a t i on of

the aut om at i c s t ay . T he di stri ctcourterre d, ho w ever , i n aff i rm i ng the bank rupt cy c our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha tthe a w a r d l i m i t a t i ons s e tf or th i n 11 U . S . C . § 106( a ) ( 3) di d n otappl y. A s are sul t , w e R EVER SE a nd VA C A TE th e a w ar d o f a tt o rn ey ’s f e e s a nd c os t s a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the l i m i t a t i ons of § 106( a ) ( 3) a nd R EVER SE a nd VA C A TE the $2000 a w a r de d a s s a nc t i ons , a nd RE MAND t o the di stri ctcourt f orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on.B L A C K , C ir c u it J u d g e , c o n c u rr in g in p a r t a n d d is s e n tin g in p a r t:

I a g r e e w ith a ll p o r tio n s o f th e C o u r t’s o p in io n e x c e p t S e c tio n F . I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t b e c a u s e I c o n c lu d e 1 1 U .S .C . § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 3 ) d o e s n o t ap p ly to l i m i tthe ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s a w a r d. S e c t i on 106( a ) ( 3) w oul d appl y onl y i f the bank rupt cy courtent er ed j ud gm entpu rs uantt o the stat ut ory a b r o g a tio n o f s ta te sovere i gn i m m un i ty e m bo di ed i n § 10 6(a) . In thi s c as e, w e do n otre l y on § 10 6(a) t o affi rm th e j u d g m en tag ai n stth e F l o ri d a D O R . In st ead , w e rel y o n th e st at es’ c ons e ntt o s ubor di na t e the i rs ove r e i gn i m m uni ty a tthe pl a n of c onve nt i on a nd, a lte rn a tiv e ly , o n F lo r id a ’s w a iv e ro f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity b y f ilin g a p r o o f

o f c la im . In ei ther c as e, the l i m i t at i on s i n § 10 6(a) (3) thatthe 19 94 C on gres s e nact ed as part o f its s ta tu to ry a b r o g a tio n s c h e m e in § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) th r o u g h ( a ) ( 4 ) d o n o t ap p ly . A . A b r o g a tio n o f

S ta te S o v e r e ig n I m m u n ity S ta te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity , a c o n c e p t e m b o d ie d in th e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t, is a n im m u n ity f

r o m s u it. Se e B latc hf

or d v . N at i v e V i l l . of N oatak , 501 U . S . 775, 77 9, 11 1 S . C t . 25 78 , 25 81 (199 1). H ow ever , there ar e c ert ai n w el l -e st abl i shed s itu a tio n s in w h ic h s ta te s a r e a m e n a b le to s u it. F ir s t, C o n g r e s s m a y a b r o g a te s ta te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity if

it u n e q u iv o c a lly e x p r e s s e s a n in te n t to a b r o g a te s ta te im m u n ity a n d a c ts p u r s u a n t to a v a lid e x e r c is e o f p o w e r . G r e e n v . M

ans our , 474 U .S . 6 4 , 6 8 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 4 2 3 , 4 2 5 - 2 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . S e c o n d , as ta te m a y w a iv e itsTh ere le va nt t e xt of § 1 06 (a) i s a s f

oll ow s: 1 (a) No tw ith sta

ndingan a ssertion

of so vere ign immunity, s ov e re ign immunity is abrog ated a s to a g overnmental unit to the ex tent set forth in this section wi thre s p ec tt o th e f

o l l o wi n g: (1) Sections 105, 106, . . . 362, . . . . (2 ) Th ec ourt

may he ar a nd de termineany

iss ueari singwi th re sp e c t to thea pp lic atio n o f s uc h s e c tio ns to g ov e rnmental units . (3 ) Th ec ourt

may iss ueag ains t a

g ov e rnmental unit a

n o rde r, proc e ss, or judgment under suc h sections or the F ederal Rules of Bankrup t cy

P ro ce d ure , i n cl u di n g ano rd er

o r j u dgm entaw ar di n g a money rec overy, but not including an a ward of punitive damag es. Such order

or judgment for c osts or fee s under this title or the Fe deral Rules of Ba

nkruptcy Procedure ag ainst any

g overnmental unit shall be consistent with the provisions and limit ations of section 2412(d) (2)(A) of title 28. (4) The enforc ement of a ny such order, proc ess, or judgment ag ainst any g overnmental unit shall be consistent with appropriate nonbankr uptcy law applicableto such g overnmental unit and, in the caseof a money judgment ag ainst the United States, shall be paid as if it is a judgment rend e re d b y

a dis tric t c ourt

of theUnite d St ate s. (5) Nothing in this section shall createany substantive claim for relief or causeof ac tion not otherwise exist ing under this titl e, the F ederal Rules of Ba nkruptcy Procedure, or nonba

nkruptcy law. 33 s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty by c ons e nt i ng t o s ui ti n f e de r a l c our t , e i the re xpr e s s l y ori n the

“ pl an of the conv ent i on . ” B la tch f o rd , 501 U . S . a t779, 111 S . C t . a t2581. I n 11 U . S . C . § 106( a ) , C ongr e s s purpor t e d t o a br oga t e s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m un i ty, t o a l i m i t ed ext ent , i n p roce edi ng s broug htun der c ert ai n enu m er at ed s e c tio n s o f

th e B a n k ru p tc y C o d e . See 11 U . S . C . § 106( a ) ( 1) - ( 4) . S ubs e c t i ons (a )( 1) throu gh (a )( 4) t og ether e st abl i sh C on gres s’ s abrog at i on sc hem e, w i th eac h s ubs e c t i on a ddi ng a n a ddi t i ona l , ne c e s s a ry c om pone ntt o the s c he m e . S ubs e c t i on 1 ( a ) ( 1) l i s t s the s pe c i f

i c s e c t i ons of

the B a nkrupt c y C ode t o w hi c h the a br oga t i on s c h e m e ap p l i e s . S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) a b r o g a t e s s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i ty s o a s t o a l l o w a34

ba nkrupt c y c our tt o he ara nd de t e r m i ne a ny i s s ue i n pr oc e e di ngs appl y i ng the e num e r a t e d s e c t i ons t o gove rnm e nt a l uni t s . S ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 3) a br oga t e s s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty s o a s t o a l l ow a ba nkrupt c y c our tt o iss ue a n o r d e ro rju d g m e n t a g a in s t a gove rnm e nt a l uni t , i nc l udi ng a s t a t e a ge nc y , i n s uc h pr oc e e di ngs . A l though subsec t i on (a )( 3) perm i t s abank rupt cy courtt o i ss ue an order aw ar di ng a m on ey re covery , the subsec t i on al so cont ai ns tw o l i m i t at i on s: fi rs t , i tdo es no tperm i tan a w a r d of puni t i ve da m a ge s a nd s e c ond, i f the or de rorj udgm e nti s f orc os t s a nd f e e s , i tr e qui r e s tha tthe or de rbe c ons i s t e ntw i th the pr ovi s i ons a nd l i m i t a t i ons of 28 U . S . C . § 2412( d) ( 2) ( A ) . F i na l l y , s ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 4) a br oga t e s s ove r e i gn im m u n ity s o a s to a llo w a b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t to enf orce a ny s uc h or de rorj udgm e nt i ti s s ue s a ga i ns ta gove rnm e nt a l uni t . A s a w hol e , s ubs e c t i ons ( a ) ( 1) thr ough ( a ) ( 4) com pri se C on gres s’ s s t atut ory abrog at i on sc hem e. W hen C on gres s e nact ed § 1 06 (a ) i n 1 99 4, the com m on perc ept i on w as that C o n g r e s s c o u ld v a lid ly a b r o g a te s ta te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity p u r s u a n t to its e n u m e r a te d p o w e r s u n d e rA r tic le I o f th e C o n s titu tio n . Se e P e nns y lv ani a v . U

ni on G as C o. , 4 9 1 U . S . 1 , 1 4 -1 9 , 1 0 9 S . C t . 2 2 7 3 , 2 2 8 1 -8 4 (1 9 8 9 ) (h o l d i n g C o n g ress m ay abrogat e s t at e s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty w hen l egi sl at i ng pu rs uantt o i t s C om m er ce C la u s e p o w e ru n d e rA r tic le I o f th e C o n s titu tio n a s lo n g a s it c le a r ly e x p r e s s e s its i nt e ntt o do s o) . T hi s pe r c e pt i on of C ongr e s s ’ s A r t i c l e I pow e r s c ha nge d i n 199635

w he n the S upr e m e C our tove rrul e d U n i o n G a s. I n Sem i no l e T ri be of Fla. v. Fl or i da , 51 7 U . S . 44 , 11 6 S . C t . 11 14 (199 6), the S up re m e C ou rthel d that C on gres s c ou l d n otabrogat e s t at e s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty pursuantt o i t s A rt i cl e I p o w e r s , b u t o n ly p u r s u a n t to § 5 o f th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t. I d. a t4 5 , 1 1 6 S. C t . a t1118. W hi l e the S upr e m e C our tdi d nota ddr e s s § 106( a ) i n Se m i nol e T r i be , its hol di ng i m pl i c i t l y r e nde r e d § 106( a ) a n unc ons t i tut i ona l a br oga t i on of s ove r e i gn i m m un i ty bec ause C on gres s e nact ed § 1 06 (a ) pursuantt o i t s A rt i cl e I bank rupt cy p o w e r . See I

n r e C r ow , 39 4 F . 3d 91 8, 92 3 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ). In 20 04 , thi s C ou rt a ddr e s s e d the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of § 106( a ) i n I

n r e C r ow a nd he l d tha t , i n l i ghtof Se m i nol e T

r i be , C ongr e s s ’ s a tt e m ptt o a br oga t e s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty i n in pe rs onam b a n k ru p tc y c a s e s w a s in v a lid . I d. a t 9 2 1 , 9 2 4 . In 20 06 , w hen p re se nt ed w i th an o pp ortun i ty t o add re ss w hether § 10 6(a) w a s a va l i d a br oga t i on of s t a t e s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty , the S upr e m e C our tdi d not a n s w e rth e q u e s tio n . Se e C e n t. V a . Cm ty C o ll. v . Ka tz , 5 4 6 U . S. 3 5 6 , ___ , 1 2 6 S. C t . 990, 995 ( 2006) . I ns t e a d, the S upr e m e C our the l d § 106( a ) w a s “ not n e c e s s a ry ” to a u th o r iz e a s u it a g a in s t a s ta te in c e r ta in b a n k ru p tc y p r o c e e d in g s . Se e id . at___, 12 6 S . C t . at 99 5, 10 00 -05 (ho l di ng C on gres s’ s a tt em pt ed abrogat i on of sovere i gn i m m un i ty i n § 10 6(a) w as un nece ss ary t o aut ho ri ze a b an k ru p t cy co u rt ’ s i n pe rs onam ju r is d ic tio n o v e ra n c illa ry o r d e r s n e c e s s a ry to36

effectuate i t s i n rem j uri sdi ct i on ). T he C ou rtexpl ai ned t hatthe st atut ory a br oga t i on w a s unne c e s s a ry be c a us e the “ S t a t e s a gr e e d i n the pl a n of the C o n v e n tio n n o t to a s s e r t a n y s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity d e f e n s e th e y m ig h t h a v e h a d in proceedi ng s broug htpu rs uantt o ‘ L aw s on the subj ec tof B ankrup t ci es . ’ ” I d. a t___, 1 2 6 S . C t a t 1 0 0 4 . C on se qu ent l y, af

t er Ka tz , the e nt i r e s t a tut or y s c he m e i n § 106( a ) ( 1) thr ough ( a ) ( 4) i s unne c e s s a ry a nd i nappl i c a bl e t o s ui t s a ga i ns ta s t a t e i n pr oc e e di ngs n ecessary to effectuate a ban k ru p t cy co u rt ’ s i n rem ju r is d ic tio n . I n p a r tic u la r , Ka tz r e n d e r s § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 3 ) , wh i c h a b r o g a t e s s t a t e s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i ty s o a s t o a l l o w a ba nkrupt c y c our tt o is s ue an o rd er ag ai n sta st at e w i th so m e l i m i t at i o n s, unne c e s s a ry a nd i nappl i c a bl e i n s uc h ba nkrupt c y pr oc e e di ngs . S e c t i on 106( a ) ( 3) ha s nothi ng t o a br oga t e orl i m i tbe c a us e , a c c or di ng t o Ka tz , ba nkrupt c y c our t s ha ve al w ay s had the po w ert o ent era m on ey j ud gm entagai nstst at es i n such p r o c e e d in g s . A ft er Ka tz , a ny othe ri nt e rpr e t a t i on of § 106( a ) i s unpe r s ua s i ve . F or in s ta n c e , if

§ 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) is s u f

f ic ie n t in a n d o f

its e lf to a b r o g a te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity (w i th o u treg ard t o § 1 0 6 (a)(2 )-(a)(4 )), i tw o u l d ren d er § 1 0 6 (a)(2 ), th e fi rst se nt ence of § 1 06 (a )( 3), and § 10 6(a) (4) m ea ni ng l es s. S ec t i on 10 6(a) (2), w hi ch pe r m i t s a ba nkrupt c y c our tt o he a ra nd de t e r m i ne i s s ue s a ga i ns ta s t a t e , w oul d ha veThe majority sug g ests that by

reading thestatute as a whole, I g ive it a “c ontextual 2 reading”and ignore theplain meaningof § 106(a)(3) . Iadmit, unlike the majority , Ido not read the sec ond sentenc e of § 106( a)( 3) in isolation. Instead, I consider a

plain reading of

subsection (a) (3) to include c onsideration of theentire statute. I n so doing, I

follow the guidanceof the Supreme Court. See King v. St. Vincent’s Hosp. , 502 U.S. 215, 221, 112 S. C t. 570, 574 (1991) (“ [W]e do n othingmore , o f c ours e , th an f oll owthec ardinal r

ulethat a statut eis to b ere a d a s a wh ole. . . s inc etheme aningof statutor y languag e , p lain o r n ot, depend s o n c onte xt.” ). My interpretation, theref

ore, is informe d by

the plain meaningof the text in relation to the statute as a wh oleor , in

oth e r w ords , b y

its c onte xt. 37 n o p u rp o s e b e c a u s e a s ta te w o u ld a lr e a d y b e a m e n a b le to s u it p u r s u a n t to § 106( a ) ( 1) ’ s “ a br oga t i on” of s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty . L i ke w i s e , the f i r s ts e nt e nc e of § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 3 ) , w h ic h p e r m its a b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t to is s u e m o n e y ju d g m e n ts a g a in s t a s ta te , w o u ld a ls o h a v e n o p u rp o s e b e c a u s e th e s ta te s w o u ld a lr e a d y b e a m e n a b le to m on ey j ud gm ent s pursuantt o § 10 6(a) (1)’ s “ abrogat i on . ” F i nal l y, § 1 06 (a )( 4), w h i ch p erm i t s a b an k ru p t cy co u rtt o en fo rce a j u d g m en tag ai n sta st at e, w o u l d al so h a v e n o p u rp o s e b e c a u s e a s ta te w o u ld b e a m e n a b le to e n f o r c e m e n t p u r s u a n t to § 1 0 6 (a)(1 )’ s “ ab ro g at i o n . ” S ect i o n 1 0 6 (a) o n l y h as m ean i n g i f i ti s read as a st atu t o ry sc hem e of abrogat i on , ef fe ct ed throu gh subsec t i on s 106 (a )( 1), (a )( 2), (a )( 3), and (a) (4). T hu s, af t er Ka tz , § 1 0 6 (a), i n i t s en t i rety, i s i n ap p l i cab l e b ecau se there i s no sov er ei gn i m m un i ty f or i t s s ub se ct i on s t o abrog at e. T he r e f or e , a pl a i n r e a di ng of

the s t a tut ory s c he m e i ndi c a t e s tha ta ny 2 l i m i t a t i ons i n s ubs e c t i ons ( a ) ( 1) thr ough ( a ) ( 4) – s uc h a s thos e i n s ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 3) r e g a r d in g p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a n d a tto rn e y ’s f e e s – ap p ly to a n a w a r d a g a in s t a38

go vernm ent al un i ton l y w here the sta tu to ry a b r o g a tio n o f s ta te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity c r e a te d th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s ju r is d ic tio n to e n te rth e a w a r d . I t is u ltim a te ly i rr el evantw hether, i n enact i ng § 1 06 (a )( 3), the 19 94 C on gres s a ctual l y i nt ended tha tthe l i m i t a t i ons i n s ubs e c t i on ( a ) ( 3) appl y t o a ll aw ar ds i ss ued agai nsta s t at e, a n d n o t o n ly a w a r d s is s u e d p u r s u a n t to th e s ta tu to ry a b r o g a tio n s c h e m e in § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) th r o u g h ( a ) ( 4 ) . T h e f a c t r e m a in s th a t th e 1 9 9 4 C o n g r e s s s p e c if ic a lly pl ac ed the l i m i t at i on s i n the t extof § 1 06 (a ), and t he l i m i t at i on s app ea r now here el se i n the B ankrup t cy C od e. O f c ou rs e, C on gres s m ay no w exer ci se i t s pl enary p o w e ro v e rth e u n if

o r m la w s o f

b a n k ru p tc y to lim it a ll a w a r d s a g a in s t a s ta te in b a n k ru p tc y p r o c e e d in g s , b u t it h a s y e t to d o s o . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the l i m i t a t i on i n § 106( a ) ( 3) doe s notappl y t o the bank rupt cy court ’ s a w ar d b ec ause , as the m aj ori ty e xp l ai ns, § 1 06 (a )’ s s t atut ory a br oga t i on of

s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty di d notc r e a t e the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on t o i s s ue a j udgm e nta ga i ns tthe F l or i da D O R . T he r e f or e , I w oul d a f

f i r m the b an k ru p tcy c o u rt’s aw ar d o f p u n it iv e d am ag es an d it s d eter m in atio n o f a tt o rn ey ’s fees. B . W a iv e ro f

S ta te S o v e r e ig n I m m u n ity T h e m a jo r ity a ls o h e ld th e F lo r id a D O R w a iv e d its s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity in thi s c a s e by f

i l i ng a pr oof

of c l a i m . E ve n i f

w e a f f i r m e d the j udgm e nta ga i ns tthe39

F l or i da D O R ba s e d on i t s w a i ve rof s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty , r a the rtha n on Ka tz , I w oul d l i ke w i s e a f

f i r m the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s a w a r d of puni t i ve da m a ge s a nd d e te r m in a tio n o f

a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s . W he r e a s t a t e w a i ve s s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty by f i l i ng a pr oof

of c l a i m , the s c o p e o f th e w a iv e ris lim ite d to th e a d ju d ic a tio n o f

th a t c la im . In R e B urke , 146 F . 3d 1313, 1319 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . O urc a s e l a w ha s notpr ovi de d a ny l i m i t a t i ons o n a n a w a r d is s u e d a g a in s t a s ta te w h e r e th e s ta te h a s w a iv e d s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity by f i l i ng a pr oof

of c l a i m . T he c l a i m i n thi s c a s e w a s the F l or i da D O R ’ s vi ol a t i on of the aut om at i c s t ay . “ [A ] n i nd i vi du al i nj ured by any w i l l ful vi ol at i on of a s t ay

. . . s ha l l r e c ove ra c tua l da m a ge s , i nc l udi ng cost s andat torneys ’ f

ee s , a n d , in approp ri at e c i rc um st ance s, m ay re cover pu ni t i ve da m ag es . ” 11 U . S . C . § 362( h) ( n o w § 3 6 2 ( k ) ( 1 ) ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . F u r th e r , th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t e n te r e d its or de rpur s ua ntt o 11 U . S . C . § 105( a ) , w hi c h gr a nt s the c our tpow e rt o “ i s s ue a ny or de r , pr oc e s s , orj udgm e nttha ti s ne c e s s a ry orappr opr i a t e t o c a rry outthe pr ovi s i ons of

thi s t i t l e . ” S e c t i on 105 doe s notc ont a i n l i m i t a t i ons on a n a w a r d of puni t i ve da m a ge s ora tt orne y ’ s f e e s . T he r e f

or e , e ve n i f

w e r e l i e d on the F l or i da D O R ’ s w ai ver of s ov er ei gn i m m un i ty t o aff i rm the j ud gm entagai nsti t , there ar eInote that the ca ses the majority cites for this iss ue, JoveEng’g, Inc . v. I.R.S. , 92 F.3d 3 1539 (11th Cir. 1996), In re W ashington , 184 B.R. 172 (S.D. Ga . 1995), and In re Flynn , 185 B.R. 89 (S.D. Ga . 1995), havelimit ed per suasive value . In these c ases, debtors sought relief ag ainst the Internal Revenue Ser vice, a federal

“ g ov e rnmental unit, ”and thec ourt s sp e c if

ic ally relied on 11 U .S.C. § 106 t o find a waiver of federal sovere ign immunity . By contra st, the instant case de als with the waiver of state sovere ign immunity pursuant to In Re B urke , 146 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 1998). We specific ally do not rely

on § 106 to find a waiver of sta te sovere ign immunity . Be causethis case doe s not requireIanswer the que stion, Iexpress no opinion on whether thelimit ations in the Equal Acc ess to Justice Ac t apply to federal

waiver s of sovere ign immunity

pursuant to § 106. 40 no l i m i t a t i ons on the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s a w a r d of puni t i ve da m a ge s a nd d et erm i n at i o n o f att o rn ey’ s fees. 3 F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t in S e c tio n F o f th e m a jo r ity o p i n i o n , an d I co n cu r i n al l o th er resp ect s.