Opinion ID: 696213
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Commission Could Satisfy a Judgment Against

Text: 21 It 22 We do not know how much money the Commission has or would have available to it to satisfy a potential judgment against it. According to the Commission, the lack of record evidence on this point renders this second funding inquiry irrelevant. We do not agree. Since the Commission bears the burden of proving its entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Commission's failure to provide pertinent information regarding its ability, or lack thereof, to satisfy a potential judgment against it simply means that the Commission has failed to sustain its burden of proof on this important question. Moreover, even in the absence of such evidence, our cases enable us to draw certain conclusions, with respect to the Commission's ability to pay a judgment against it. In both Bolden and Fitchik, we suggested that an entity with power to raise revenues by raising fares need not request funds from the state to meet shortfalls caused by adverse judgments. See Bolden, 953 F.2d at 819; Fitchik, 873 F.2d at 661. 7 The Commission is authorized to fix, and to revise, from time to time, tolls for the use of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System. 36 P.S. Sec. 651.16(a). In fact, the Commission's authority to set the toll rate shall not be subject to supervision or regulation by any other State commission, board, bureau or agency. Id. at Sec. 651.16(b). In light of Bolden and Fitchik, we think the Commission's power to raise revenue levels by increasing the toll rates, even in the absence of information regarding the Commission's financial condition and consequent ability to pay a judgment against it, supports the view that the Commission need not seek assistance from the state to satisfy a judgment against it. 23