Bair v. Krug

Citation853 F.2d 672
Decision Date10 May 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-2399,87-2399
PartiesFed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,950, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7000 Pearl BAIR; Gus Balash; Joseph Barry; Linda M. Barry; Barbara Carr; Debbie Carr; Evelyn L. Carr; Sheri Carr; John S. Decristo; Elio Donato; Helen Donato; Cecelia D. Hasior; Walter Hasior; Colon K. Hedges, Harvey Jensen; Patricia A. Johnson; Willard E. Johnson; Linda Jones; Hildegard Jopes; Raymond Jopes; David K. Kaplan; Eileen Kerner; Valdas V. Kiskis; Florence Klessig; W.K. Klessig; Cecelia Laborati; Juan C. Laborati; Doris Landman; Kenneth Landman; Nelvin Landman; Wayne Landman; Madeline Lesky; Mark Lesky; Nancy Lian; Faye Margolin; Sara J. Melissa; Armond Merluzzi; Lawrence Murphy; Robert Nason; Helen E. Pinon; Zip L. Pinon; Carmen Ramos; Joseph Ramos; Mary L. Rossi; Max Sparks; Sally Sparks; Nancy Taylor; Nancy Tillman; Marla Vaccaro; Robert A. Vaccaro; Erik Westblom; Richard H. Wheeler; Sara R. Wheeler; and Joe R. Wickman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Glenn D. "Sam" KRUG, et al., Defendants, and Glen F. Walquist, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator of Financial Institutions Division of the Department of Commerce of the State of Nevada; L. Scott Walshaw, in his capacity as Administrator of Financial Institutions Division of the Department of Commerce of the State of Nevada; and Larry D. Struve, in his capacity as Director of the Department of Commerce of the State of Nevada, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Chris Maglaras, Jr., Ward & Maglaras, Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Philip R. Byrnes, Deputy Atty. Gen., Las Vegas, Nev., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before CHAMBERS, NOONAN and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal and the case of Central Reserve Life of North America Ins. Co. v. Struve, 852 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir.1988), we are called upon to outline the scope and extent of eleventh amendment immunity as it relates to situations in which a state has not been named as a party defendant. Although the bases of jurisdiction in the two cases are different, the issues presented and the analyses set forth are similar.

FACTS

In 1978 All State Thrift ("Thrift"), variously described as a "bank" or "savings and loan association," received a license from the State of Nevada to operate as a thrift company under Nevada law. Beginning in January 1984 and continuing through October of that same year, officers of Thrift (defendants below but not parties to this appeal) solicited numerous private individuals ("appellants") to invest in Thrift. Responding to these solicitations, the appellants purchased more than $3 million of Thrift investment certificates.

Meanwhile, in February 1984, Thrift had been placed under state supervision and control. 1 An audit of the institution's books performed the following year disclosed that Thrift's liabilities exceeded its assets by some $10 million. As a result of Thrift's insolvency, its assets were sold to another financial institution, with the appellants recovering approximately 50% of the value of their original $3 million investment.

Shortly thereafter, the appellants filed the instant action in federal district court, asserting federal claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission Rules, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as a pendent state law claim, against various individual and Among those named as party defendants were Larry Struve, Glen Walquist, and Scott Walshaw ("appellees"), state officials charged under Nevada law with the regulatory oversight of state-chartered financial institutions. The State of Nevada was neither named as a party defendant nor served with copies of the summons and complaint. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as against them, arguing that the State of Nevada was the real party in interest and that the eleventh amendment therefore barred the district court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and subsequently entered judgment in favor of the appellees. The appellants have filed a timely appeal.

                corporate defendants. 2   Jurisdiction in the district court was predicated on the existence of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331
                
DISCUSSION

The only issue presented on this appeal is whether the eleventh amendment bars an action against state officials sued in their official capacities based on alleged past misconduct. In addressing eleventh amendment problems, we note that five questions must be answered: (1) is the plaintiff one to whom the amendment applies; (2) is the state the real party in interest; (3) is the relief sought barred by the amendment; (4) has the state waived its sovereign immunity; and, if not, (5) is there a congressional statute overriding the state's immunity? See 1 J. Nowak, R. Rotunda & J. Young, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure, Sec. 2.12(b) at 85 (1986) ("Constitutional Law ").

The first, fourth, and fifth questions are easily disposed of. Although the express wording of the eleventh amendment only bars actions filed against a state by citizens of another state or foreign country, the amendment has also been construed to preclude law suits filed against a state by one of its own citizens. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 275-77, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 2939, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15, 10 S.Ct. 504, 507, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). Simply put, all private plaintiffs are subject to the amendment. Constitutional Law at 85. Accordingly, the appellants are subject to the eleventh amendment here.

With respect to the fourth question, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the State of Nevada has waived its sovereign immunity in such actions. To the contrary, Nevada has expressly reserved its eleventh amendment immunity. See Nev.Rev.Stat. Sec. 41.031(3). 3 See also Nev.Rev.Stat. Sec. 41.032 (extending immunity generally to state officers). 4

As for the fifth question, the appellants have neither argued nor proffered any authority in support of a contention that Congress has overridden Nevada's eleventh amendment immunity under the facts as alleged. We therefore turn to an examination of the interrelated second and third questions.

As this court has already noted, where the eleventh amendment is concerned,

[T]he state need not be a named party to [an] action; the Amendment bars a suit against state officials when "the state is the real, substantial party in interest." ... [T]he Eleventh Amendment bars a suit in federal court by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury.

Kerr Center Parents Ass'n v. Charles, 842 F.2d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, even though not named as a party defendant, a state will be deemed the real party in interest where, e.g., "the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration...." Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir.1984) (quoting Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620, 83 S.Ct. 999, 1006, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1127 (1985). Put simply, the eleventh amendment bars actions against state officers sued in their official capacities for past alleged misconduct involving a complainant's federally protected rights, where the nature of the relief sought is retroactive, i.e., money damages, rather than prospective, e.g., an injunction. Papasan, 478 U.S. at 278, 106 S.Ct. at 2940; Shaw v. California Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 788 F.2d 600, 604 (9th Cir.1986).

A qualification to the general rule stated above is that an action will not be deemed to be against the state where the plaintiff seeks to impose personal liability on a state official sued in his individual capacity as a result of actions undertaken by that official which violated the plaintiff's federally protected rights. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 238, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); 5 Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 919 (9th Cir.1986); Shaw, 788 F.2d at 604; Demery, 735 F.2d at 1146. It is upon this exception to the rule that the appellants have hung their collective hats.

The caption to the appellants' amended complaint identifies the appellees as follows:

GLEN F. WALQUIST, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator of Financial Institutions Division of the Department of Commerce of the State of Nevada; L....

To continue reading

Request your trial
111 cases
  • McMaster v. State of Minn.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 29 Abril 1993
    ...109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Nor are states subject to suit under RICO, absent a state waiver of immunity. See Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1988). Therefore, defendants assert that with the exception of the FLSA claim, all claims against the state and the individual defend......
  • Smith v. Babbitt
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 17 Febrero 1995
    ...(8th Cir. 1994) (holding that State of Minnesota was immune from RICO suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity); Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 674-75 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that State of Nevada was immune from RICO suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity); Ungaro v. Desert Palac......
  • Comm. to Protect Our Agric. Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 20 Enero 2017
    ...Brown , 757 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2013) ; Brown v. California. Dept. of Corr. , 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) ; Bair v. Krug , 853 F.2d 672, 674–75 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that RICO does not override a state's sovereign immunity). However, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits ag......
  • Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 10 Noviembre 1997
    ...79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 666-67, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1357-58, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)); Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir.1988) ("[T]he eleventh amendment bars actions against state officers sued in their official capacities for past alleged misconduct i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT