Opinion ID: 198411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Litigation Starts.

Text: 4 Plaintiffs filed their complaint in August 1995 and an answer was filed in October of the same year. No reference was made in either document to the Eleventh Amendment, the ADA's express abrogation provision, or the power of Congress to abrogate a state's immunity. The only arguably relevant reference was the inclusion, in a list of ten affirmative defenses, of an item reading Lacks [sic] of subject matter jurisdiction. 5 About two years after the time period for filing dispositive motions had passed, and apparently as a result of a change of counsel, defendant in May 1998 filed a motion for summary judgment asserting, inter alia, that the complaint was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits suit by private parties against a state in federal court, without that state's consent. 2 The motion focused on the Tourism Company's status as an instrumentality of the state and its consequent entitlement to Eleventh Amendment protection. 6 Plaintiffs responded by arguing that the motion should be denied as late. The district court agreed and issued the following order: 7 This motion is ordered stricken from the record as untimely and because it constitutes a violation of the Court's case management orders. Any further attempts to file untimely dispositive motions will be subject to sanctions. 8 The Tourism Company sought reconsideration, repeating its earlier Eleventh Amendment argument, and, in a response that was styled as a motion for sanctions, the plaintiffs argued that the Eleventh Amendment immunity was patently inapplicable based on the statutory definition of employer in the ADA, which excluded the United States but not state governments. The district court denied the defendant's request for reconsideration without comment, and denied the motion for sanctions without prejudice to renew once any appeal is decided. 9