Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/534/533/case.php
Timestamp: 2018-07-18 17:45:09
Document Index: 187203356

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1367', '§ 5', '§ 621', '§ 1331', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1332', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 108', '§ 525', '§ 6606', '§ 9658', '§ 1983', '§ 2000', '§ 621', '§ 1983', '§ 626', '§ 1367']

RAYGOR ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. 534 U.S. 533 - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions - On-Line> Volume 534 > RAYGOR ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. 534 U.S. 533
RAYGOR ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. 534 U.S. 533
Subscribe to Cases that cite 534 U.S. 533
(b) Because § 1367(d), on its face, purports to apply to dismissals of "any claim asserted under subsection (a)," it could be broadly read to apply to any such claim regardless of the reason for dismissal. Butcralaw
(c) Petitioners argue that the tolling provision should be interpreted to apply to their claims because it was enacted to prevent due process violations caused by state claim preclusion and anti-claim-splitting laws. However, since it is far from clear whether Congress intended tolling to apply when claims against non consenting States were dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds, it is not relevant whether Congress acted pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. And there is no merit to petitioners' claim that respondent consented to suit in federal court, since it raised its Eleventh Amendment defense at the earliestcralaw
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 548. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 549.
*Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Maryland et al. by J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Andrew Baida, Solicitor General, Robert H. Kono, Acting Attorney General of Guam, and Dan Schweitzer, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, Earl I. Anzai of Hawaii, Steve Carter of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Jeremiah W (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, W A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, D. Michael Fisher of Pennsylvania, Charles M. Condon of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, and Randolph Beales of Virginia; and for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley.cralaw
The EEOC cross-filed petitioners' charges with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) and later issued a right-to-sue letter on June 6, 1996, advising that petitioners could file a lawsuit within 90 days under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V). Brief for United States 5. The MDHR likewise issued right-to-sue letters on July 17, 1996, advising petitioners that they could file suit within 45 days under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat., ch. 363 (1991). 620 N. W. 2d 680, 681 (Minn. 2001); App. to Pet. for Cert. A-46 to A-47.cralaw
In early July 1997, respondent filed its motion to dismiss petitioners' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Brief for Petitioners 5, n. 5. The motion argued that the federal and state law claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Brief for Respondent Regents of the University of Minnesota 5. Petitioners' response acknowledged respondent's " 'potential Eleventh Amendment immunity from state discrimination claims in Federal Court,'" but urged the District Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims if the federal claims were upheld. Brief for Petitioners 5-6. On July 11, 1997, the District Court granted respondent's Rule 12(b)(1) motion and dismissed all of petitioners' claims. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-39. Petitioners appealed, but the appeal was stayed pending this Court's decision in Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62 (2000). 620 N. W. 2d, at 682. Kimel held that the "ADEA does not validly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity." 528 U. S., at 92. Given that result, petitioners moved to withdraw their appeal, and itcralaw
The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed. The court first decided that the Federal District Court had original jurisdiction over the case before respondent's Eleventh Amendment defense was "successfully asserted." 604 N. W.cralaw
In Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966), this Court held that federal courts deciding claims within their federalquestion subject matter jurisdiction, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, may decide state law claims not within their subject matter jurisdiction if the federal and state law claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" and comprise "but one constitutional 'case.'" Mine Workers, supra, at 725. Jurisdiction over state law claims in such instances was known as "pendent jurisdiction." This Court later made clear that, absent authorization from Congress, a district court could not exercise pendent jurisdiction over claims involving par-cralaw
Petitioners originally sought to have their state law claims heard in federal court as supplemental claims falling under § 1367(a). App. to Brief for Petitioners B-3. Prior to the enactment of § 1367, however, this Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the adjudication of pendent state lawcralaw
Such a facially broad grant of jurisdiction over "all civil actions" could be read to include claims by Indian tribes against nonconsenting States, but we held that such language was insufficient to constitute a clear statement of an intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Blatchford, supra, at 786. Likewise, we cannot read § 1367(a) to authorize district courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against nonconsenting States, even though nothing in the statute expressly excludes such claims. Thus, consistent with Blatch-cralaw
When the sovereign at issue is the United States, we have recognized that a limitations period may be "a central condition" of the sovereign's waiver of immunity. United States v. M ottaz, 476 U. S. 834, 843 (1986); see also Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 287 (1983) ("When waiver legislation contains a statutecralaw
Consequently, we have good reason to rely on a clear statement principle of statutory construction. When "Congress intends to alter the 'usual constitutional balance between the States and the Federal Government,' it must make its intention to do so 'unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.'" Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U. S. 58, 65 (1989) (quoting Atascadero, supra, at 242). This principle applies when Congress "intends to pre-empt the historic powers of the States" or when it legislates in "'traditionally sensitive areas'" that" 'affec[t] the federal balance.'"cralaw
The question then is whether § 1367(d) states a clear intent to toll the limitations period for claims against nonconsenting States that are dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Here the lack of clarity is apparent in two respects. With respect to the claims the tolling provision covers, one could read § 1367(d) to cover any claim "asserted" under subsec-cralaw
With respect to the dismissals the tolling provision covers, one could read § 1367(d) in isolation to authorize tolling regardless of the reason for dismissal, but § 1367(d) occurs in the context of a statute that specifically contemplates only a few grounds for dismissal. The requirements of § 1367(a) make clear that a claim will be subject to dismissal if it fails to "form part of the same case or controversy" as a claim within the district court's original jurisdiction. Likewise, § 1367(b) entails that certain claims will be subject to dismissal if exercising jurisdiction over them would be "inconsistent" with 28 U. S. C. § 1332 (1994 ed. and Supp. V). Finally, § 1367(c) (1994 ed.) lists four specific situations in which a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a particular claim. Given that particular context, it is unclear if the tolling provision was meant to apply to dismissals for reasons unmentioned by the statute, such as dismissals on Eleventh Amendment grounds. See Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 809 (1989) ("It is a fundamental canon of statutory constructioncralaw
Petitioners also argue that our construction of the statute does not resolve their case because respondent consented tocralaw
Indeed, such circumstances are readily distinguishable from the limited situations where this Court has found a State consented to suit, such as when a State voluntarily invoked federal court jurisdiction or otherwise "ma[de] a 'clear declaration' that it intends to submit itself to our jurisdiction." College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 676 (1999). And even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that consent could be inferred "from the failure to raise the objection at the outset of the proceedings," Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U. S., at 395 (KENNEDY, J., concurring)-a standard this Court has not adopted-consent would still not be found here since respondent raised the issue in its answer. Thus, we find no merit to petitioners' argument that respondent was a consenting state defendant during the federal court proceedings. We express no view on the application or constitutionality of § 1367(d) when a State consents to suit or when a defendant is not a State.cralaw
1 This Court's majority, in contrast to the Minnesota Supreme Court, does not invoke Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706 (1999), in support of today's decision. I joined the dissent in Alden and, in a suitable case, would join a call to reexamine that decision. Cf. post, at 554-555 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).cralaw
"A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."cralaw
"The period of limitations for any claim asserted under subsection (a) ... shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period."cralaw
7See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 108 (tolling during bankruptcy); 50 U. S. C. App. § 525 (1994 ed.) (Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940) (tolling during military service); 15 U. S. C. § 6606(e)(4) (Y2K Act) (tolling during notice and remediation period for Year 2000 related claims); cf. 42 U. S. C. § 9658 (1994 ed.) (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) (setting uniform limitations-period commencement date in suits under state law for damages due to hazardous release exposure).cralaw
9 See 620 N. W. 2d 680, 686 (2001) ("[W]e read Alden to require that the University's waiver of immunity be limited to the [45-day limitations period]").cralaw
12 The university received notice of the claim and was able to take part fully in the prosecution of the litigation by engaging in extensive discovery and participating in mediation.cralaw
15 It may also impose serious burdens on already-overworked state courts. Claims brought under state antidiscrimination statutes such as the MHRA, for example, will often be bound up with claims under similar federal statutes, such as 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1994 ed., Supp. V); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V); and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V). The state courts have concurrentcralaw
jurisdiction over these federal statutes. Felder v. Casey, 487 U. S. 131, 139 (1988) (§ 1983); Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U. S. 820 (1990) (Title VII); 29 U. S. C. § 626(c)(I) (ADEA). As a result of the Court's reading of § 1367(d), many litigants with such mixed claims against state entities may decide to file their entire suits in state court. By doing so, they avoid the cost and confusion of duplicate filings. They also eliminate the risk that a time bar will attach to a claim dismissed from federal court on Eleventh Amendment grounds, which might occur even when, as in this case, Eleventh Amendment immunity was not evident at the time the suit was filed. Thus, in attempting to preserve the "balance between the States and the Federal Government," ante, at 543, the Court risks upending that balance by removing from the state courts the assistance of the federal courts in adjudicating many claims.cralaw
The next page is purposely numbered 801. The numbers between 555 and 801 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the orders with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United States Reports.cralaw