Opinion ID: 1449914
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's Waiver of Sovereign Immunity

Text: Even if a plaintiff seeks damages for past conduct, sovereign immunity will not insulate a state from suit in state court, provided the state has previously consented to be sued in state court under like circumstances. See Carey v. Nev. Gaming Control Bd., 279 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir.2002). While a state's consent to suit in its own courts does not waive sovereign immunity against suit in federal court, Carey, 279 F.3d at 877 (noting that waiver of sovereign immunity only gives [the state's] consent to suits in its own courts), a state that consents to suit in state court cannot invoke the sovereign immunity defense after removing the suit to federal court, Embury v. King, 361 F.3d 562, 566 (9th Cir.2004); Stewart v. North Carolina, 393 F.3d 484, 488 (4th Cir.2005). As a result, given that the Director removed the case, sovereign immunity will not protect him if the State has previously consented to suits like this one in state court. Here, Independent Living points to several state authorities it claims constitute such consent. First, it notes that California Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 provides: A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. Though it does not explicitly waive sovereign immunity against retroactive disbursements, this provision can be read to sanction judicially ordered fund disbursements generally. California state courts, some interpreting California Code of Civil Procedure § 1085, have condoned such orders in more explicit terms. Various decisions have interpreted state law to permit mandamus actions seeking disbursement of unlawfully withheld funds. See, e.g., County of L.A. v. Riley, 20 Cal.2d 652, 128 P.2d 537, 543 (1942); L.A. County v. State Dep't of Pub. Health, 158 Cal.App.2d 425, 443, 322 P.2d 968 (1958). Notably, some of these cases have specifically recognized the availability of monetary awards against a state agency or official resulting from unlawfully withheld health and welfare payments. See Mission Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Shewry, 168 Cal.App.4th 460, 480, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 639 (2008) (citing Code of Civil Procedure § 1085); Santa Ana Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Belshe, 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 837, 65 Cal. Rptr.2d 754 (1997) (noting that [a]ctions seeking traditional mandamus to compel a state officer to comply with a mandatory duty to disburse funds do not invade sovereign immunity, even though they involve an incidental monetary award (citing of Sacramento v. Lackner, 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 587-88, 159 Cal.Rptr. 1 (Cal.Ct.App. 1979))). In Los Angeles County v. Riley, the court authorized back payments for needy services against the State and noted that [t]he rule is well established in this state that where the action is one simply to compel an officer to perform a duty expressly enjoined upon him by law, it may not be considered a suit against the state. 128 P.2d at 543 (citing, e.g., Bd. of Dirs. of Woman's Relief Corps Home Ass'n of Cal. v. Nye, 8 Cal.App. 527, 97 P. 208 (Cal.Ct. App.1908)); see also L.A. County v. State Dep't of Pub. Health, 158 Cal.App.2d at 442-43, 322 P.2d 968; id. at 443, 322 P.2d 968 (holding that because the object of the present suits is to compel state officers to disburse funds specifically appropriated for tuberculosis subsidies in the manner provided by the statute, the order involves no invasion of state sovereignty and does not fall within the rule precluding suits against the state without its consent). Thus, California has construed the scope of its sovereign immunity as it relates to awards of unlawfully withheld funds more narrowly than have the federal courts. Compare, e.g., L.A. County, 158 Cal.App.2d at 442-43, 322 P.2d 968 with Edelman, 415 U.S. at 668, 94 S.Ct. 1347, and Noatak, 38 F.3d at 1512. Under California law, an action seeking injunctive relief that requires a state official to disburse funds is not an action against the State. Thus, it does not implicate the State's sovereign immunity against liability in its own courts. Had this action remained in state court, the Director would not have enjoyed sovereign immunity against a order directing payment of retroactive benefits. Under our precedent, because the Director enjoyed no sovereign immunity in state court against a order directing payment of retroactive benefits, it follows that the Directorby removing the case to federal courtwaived sovereign immunity in that forum as well. See Embury, 361 F.3d at 566 (citing Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613, 623-24, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002)) (holding that, in removing a case to federal court, a state defendant waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity); see also Stewart, 393 F.3d at 488. Embury's rule is grounded on the Supreme Court's holding in Lapides, which held that where a state removed a state law defamation action to federal court, it waived its sovereign immunity against the state claim. Id. at 624, 122 S.Ct. 1640. Embury extended Lapides' s principle to federal claims. [20] 361 F.3d at 565-66 (citing Lapides, 535 U.S. at 620, 623-24, 122 S.Ct. 1640). Under Embury, the Director, having waived state court immunity, also waived federal court sovereign immunity by voluntarily removing the action. Because the Director lacked sovereign immunity against retroactive orders, the district court's August 18 order should have applied retroactively. As a result, by basing its order on an erroneous legal standard, the district court erred in eliminating the injunction's retroactive effect. We hold that the district court's injunction should extend to all services covered by that injunction and provided on or after July 1, 2008.