53 F.4th 516
10th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Tamatha Hennessey alleged a radiology technician sexually assaulted her while she was at the University of Kansas Hospital; she sued the University of Kansas Hospital Authority (UKHA) for negligent supervision in federal court, invoking diversity jurisdiction.
- UKHA moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and on Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity grounds, asserting (without evidentiary support) that it is an arm/instrumentality of the State of Kansas.
- The district court—despite UKHA presenting no evidence or Steadfast-factor analysis—examined the University of Kansas Hospital Authority Act and concluded UKHA is an arm of the state, dismissed the case for lack of diversity and sovereign immunity.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit considered (1) who bears the burden to show arm-of-the-state status, (2) whether UKHA is an arm of the state under the Steadfast factors, and (3) whether limited discovery/remand was required.
- The Tenth Circuit held the entity asserting arm-of-the-state status bears the burden, found UKHA failed to meet it, concluded the district court erred in sua sponte resolving autonomy under the Act, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden to prove arm-of-the-state status for Eleventh Amendment immunity and diversity purposes? | Burden on UKHA to show arm-of-state; UKHA presented nothing so dismissal improper. | Implicitly argued plaintiff must establish diversity; district court previously resolved arm-of-state sua sponte. | The entity asserting arm-of-the-state status (UKHA) bears the burden. |
| Whether UKHA is an arm of the state under the Steadfast factors (state characterization, autonomy, finances, local/state concern). | Act supports that UKHA is a corporate, political instrumentality — but the Act also permits independent finance, contracting, and personnel systems, supporting non-arm status. | The Act’s language ("political instrumentality," governor-appointed board, immunities) shows UKHA is an arm of the state. | On the record (Act alone) finances and autonomy factors do not support arm status; district court erred to resolve autonomy sua sponte without evidence; remand required for UKHA to meet its burden. |
| Whether the district court properly raised and decided arm-of-the-state status sua sponte without evidentiary submissions. | Remand for limited discovery is appropriate because UKHA offered no evidence on finances or autonomy. | District court may raise Eleventh Amendment issues sua sponte and did so here. | A court may raise the issue sua sponte if judicially noticeable evidence conclusively resolves the factors; but it should not resolve the issue without evidence when factors conflict and the burden remains with the entity. |
| Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded diversity jurisdiction (citizenship) despite pro se filing. | Hennessey alleged she was a Missouri resident and UKHA operated in Kansas; pleadings suffice for diversity at pleading stage. | UKHA argued plaintiff did not explicitly plead diversity and that, if UKHA is an arm of the state, diversity fails. | Plaintiff’s pro se allegations were sufficient to allege diversity; but the ultimate jurisdictional question depends on the arm-of-the-state determination, which UKHA failed to prove. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Agric. Ins. Co., 507 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2007) (articulates the four primary Steadfast structural factors for arm-of-the-state analysis)
- Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (Supreme Court guidance on Eleventh Amendment twin aims and structural indicators)
- Duke v. Grady Mun. Schls., 127 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 1997) (two-step arm-of-the-state framework and reliance on state-law characterization)
- Woods v. Rondout Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 466 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding the entity invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity bears the burden)
- Fresenius Med. Care Cardiovascular Res., Inc. v. Puerto Rico & Carib. Cardiovascular Ctr. Corp., 322 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2003) (assigns burden to entity asserting immunity; emphasizes state-treasury risk)
- U.S. ex rel. Sikkenga v. Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Utah, 472 F.3d 702 (10th Cir. 2006) (focuses on legal liability to state treasury as most salient Eleventh Amendment factor)
- Southway v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 328 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2003) (FSIA context: foreign sovereign bears initial burden of immunity showing)