(DOWNLOAD) "Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Vega" by Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Vega
- Author : Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 13, 1999
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
Commonwealth Edison Company and its defined-benefit pension plan brought this suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. sec.sec. 1001 et seq., against the administrator of the Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, 765 ILCS 1025, seeking a declaration that ERISA preempts the Illinois statute to the extent that the statute regulates such plans. The district court agreed, precipitating this appeal by the state. A threshold question unremarked by the parties or the district Judge concerns the states Eleventh Amendment immunity to being sued in a federal court without its consent. A suit against a state officer in his or (in this case) her official capacity is deemed a suit against the state, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169-70 (1985); V-1 Oil Co. v. Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, 131 F.3d 1415, 1421 (10th Cir. 1997), and a mere failure to raise an Eleventh Amendment defense in court is not treated as a waiver, e.g., Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677-78 (1974); Estate of Porter by Nelson v. Illinois, 36 F.3d 684, 691 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1994); V-1 Oil Co. v. Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, supra, 131 F.3d at 1419-20; Suarez Corporation Industries v. McGraw, 125 F.3d 222, 227 (4th Cir. 1997), even though the Supreme Court has now made clear that a violation of the Eleventh Amendment does not deprive the federal court of jurisdiction over the suit. Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 515 n. 19 (1982); Idaho v. Coeur dAlene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267 (1997). But the only relief sought by the plaintiffs in this case is an injunction against enforcing a state statute that they contend is unenforceable by virtue of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, and that is relief equally available, with no Eleventh Amendment hurdle to overcome, by a suit against the responsible official in her private capacity. See Idaho v. Coeur dAlene Tribe of Idaho, supra, 521 U.S. at 269, for the general principle, and Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14 (1983), and Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 107 F.3d 1000, 1006-07 (2d Cir. 1997), for its application to ERISA. In consequence, federal suits against state officials for purely injunctive relief are treated in effect as suits against them in their personal capacity, lifting the Eleventh Amendment bar. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10 (1989); Kentucky v. Graham, supra, 473 U.S. at 167 n. 14.