Gary Ramsey v. Esther Muna
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3601
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (a former doctor at Saipan’s public hospital) sued the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and its public hospital authority, alleging wrongful denial of hospital privileges and asserting contract and tort claims under Commonwealth law. Federal-law claims were dismissed earlier.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Commonwealth-law claims on sovereign-immunity grounds; the district court denied the motion, citing Fleming v. Department of Public Safety.
- The Commonwealth appealed interlocutorily the denial of sovereign immunity; this Court has jurisdiction.
- Fleming held that the Covenant impliedly waived the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity for suits in federal court arising under federal law, based on omission of the Eleventh Amendment from Covenant §501(a) and legislative history.
- This panel considered whether Fleming’s reasoning extends to Commonwealth-law claims and whether the Covenant or other enactments waived immunity for such claims in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth waived sovereign immunity for claims arising under Commonwealth law | Ramsey: Omission of Eleventh Amendment and Covenant history indicates waiver that could apply broadly | Commonwealth: Covenant does not waive immunity for suits under Commonwealth law; any waiver must be unequivocal | Held: Commonwealth did not waive immunity for claims under its own laws; such suits require consent |
| Whether Fleming controls immunity for Commonwealth-law claims | Ramsey: Fleming’s inference of waiver supports jurisdiction over Commonwealth-law claims | Commonwealth: Fleming addressed only federal-law claims and did not decide Commonwealth-law waiver | Held: Fleming is inapposite; it addressed only federal-law claims and suggested Commonwealth retained immunity for local-law suits |
| Whether the Covenant’s omission of the Eleventh Amendment constitutes an unequivocal waiver | Ramsey: Omission implies waiver of immunity in federal court | Commonwealth: Omission is equally plausibly explained by other reasons; waiver must be express or unequivocal per Supreme Court precedent | Held: Omission is not an unequivocal waiver; waiver standard not met |
| Whether 7 C.M.C. §2251 (statutory waiver) permits suits in federal court | Ramsey: Statute waives immunity for certain Commonwealth-law claims | Commonwealth: §2251 grants exclusive original jurisdiction to Commonwealth courts, not federal courts | Held: §2251 does not waive immunity for federal-court suits; it reserves jurisdiction to Commonwealth courts |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 837 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1988) (held Covenant impliedly waived Commonwealth immunity for federal-law suits in federal court)
- Del Campo v. Kennedy, 517 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) (interlocutory appeal jurisdiction for immunity decisions)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (waiver of state sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (waiver requires express language or overwhelming implication)
- Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) (state statute must specifically indicate willingness to be sued in federal court to waive immunity)
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (state sovereign immunity recognized as inherent to sovereignty)
- People of Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U.S. 270 (1913) (territories with power to enact laws enjoyed sovereign immunity for local-law claims)
- Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349 (1907) (territorial immunity for claims under local law)
- Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934) (sovereign immunity is an attribute of sovereignty, not solely Eleventh Amendment)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (reinforces state sovereign immunity principles)