Mosers v. Credit Suisse, New York Branch

4 Citing cases

  1. Public Sch. Retire. Sys. v. State Street Bank

    640 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2011)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that sovereign immunity applied where "the State of Missouri created [the Public School Retirement System of Missouri] and [the Public Education Employee Retirement System of Missouri]" and where "Missouri statutes characterize the Retirement Systems as 'state agenc[ies]'"

    7, 99-100 (2d Cir. 2001) (concluding Eleventh Amendment immunity existed where the state made significant payments each year to the retirement system and the state would become responsible for judgments against the system); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 519 F.2d 559, 565 (2d Cir. 1975), rev'd on other grounds, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (determining the retirement fund was an arm of the state where the state was required to appropriate funds annually and pay retirement income payments, and thus a judgment against the fund would automatically increase the obligations of the state treasury); W. Va. Inv. Mgmt. Bd. v. Residential Accredited Loans, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-461, 2010 WL 3418314, at *2-4 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 26, 2010) (finding the investment board was an arm of the state where its funds were transmitted through the state and the board was composed of state officials and ten members appointed by the governor); Mo. State Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Credit Suisse, N.Y. Branch, No. 09-4224-CV-C-NKL, 2010 WL 318652, at *6 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 21, 2010) (concluding the Missouri State Employees' Retirement System was an arm of the state where the state was statutorily obligated to contribute to the system's budget and the majority of the board was comprised of state officials); N.M. ex rel. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n of N.M., Inc. v. Austin Capital Mgmt. Ltd., 671 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1253 (D.N.M. 2009) (considering an educational retirement board to be an arm of the state where it was composed primarily of state officials or those appointed by the governor and the state treasurer was the custodian of the fund, with disbursements from the fund made through the state); Cal. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Moody's Corp., Nos. C 09-03628 SI, C 09-03629 JCS, 2009 WL 3809816, at *3 (N.D.Cal. November 10, 2009) (determining a retirement fund was an arm of the state where the state had substantial fiscal obligations to the fund, including an obligation to contribute annually to the fund and pay any shortfall in its funding); Turner v. State of Ind. Teachers'

  2. The Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Corizon Health, Inc.

    627 F. Supp. 3d 1030 (W.D. Mo. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, if a state, or arm of the state, is a party, the case is not removable on diversity grounds. See 14C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3723 (4th ed., Apr. 2022 update) ("Since it is well established that a state is not a 'citizen' of any state, it follows that when a state is a real party in interest, the case cannot be removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction."); Pub. Sch. Ret. Sys. of Missouri v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co., 640 F.3d 821, 833 (8th Cir. 2011) (finding claim brought by arm of state was not subject to removal pursuant to diversity statute because an arm of the state is not a " 'citizen[ ]' for the purposes of § 1332(a)(1)[.]"); Missouri State Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Credit Suisse, New York Branch, No. 09-cv-4224-NKL, 2010 WL 318652, at *6 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 21, 2010) (remanding case brought by arm of state retirement plan because "suits [by an arm of the state] are not subject to removal to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.").See also Maryland Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket Inc., 407 F.3d 255, 260 (4th Cir. 2005) ("Thus, if one party to an action is not a citizen, and therefore not able to sue or be sued in federal court under § 1332, the district court does not have jurisdiction of the action under § 1332, even if all other parties to that action are citizens of different states."); Louisiana v. Union Oil Co. of California, 458 F.3d 364, 366 (5th Cir. 2006) ("Ordinarily '[i]n an action where a state is a party, there can be no federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship because a state is not a citizen for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.' "); Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir. 1999) ("Therefore, if a party is deemed to be 'an arm or alter ego of the State,' then diversit

  3. Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC

    834 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D.N.M. 2011)   Cited 50 times

    See Burrell v. Teacher's Ret. Sys. of Ala., 353 Fed.Appx. 182, 183 (11th Cir.2009) (Teacher's Retirement System of Alabama); Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 359–61 (6th Cir.2005) (Michigan's retirement system for state-court judges and state officials); McGinty v. New York, 251 F.3d 84, 96 (2d Cir.2001) (New York State and Local Employees Retirement System); Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 519 F.2d 559, 561 (2d Cir.1975), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds,427 U.S. 445, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (Connecticut's State Employees' Retirement System); W. Va. Inv. Mgmt. Bd. v. Residential Accredited Loans, Inc., No. 10–00461, 2010 WL 3418314, at *5 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 26, 2010) (West Virginia Investment Management Board); Mo. State Emps' Ret. Sys. v. Credit Suisse, N.Y. Branch, No. 09–4224, 2010 WL 318652, at *6 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 21, 2010) (Missouri State Employees' Retirement System); Cal. Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys. v. Moody's Corp., Nos. C 09–03628, 09–03629, 2009 WL 3809816, at *2–*8 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (California Public Employees Retirement System); JMB Grp. Trust IV v. Penn. Mun. Ret. Sys., 986 F.Supp. 534, 538 (N.D.Ill.1997) (Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System). Because the ERB may be an arm of the state, the ERB trustees may be “officer [s] ... of a governmental entity” pursuant to N.M.S.A.1978, § 41–4–3F.

  4. Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P.v. Century Coal, LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:09CV398 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Granting plaintiff's motion to remand and stating that "Indiantown contends that Century's Notice of Removal and subsequent jurisdictional discovery fail to establish complete diversity"

    " The fourth factor also weighs in favor of MPERS being an arm of the state. Moreover, a federal district court in Missouri recently determined that two of MPERS' sister retirement systems were "arms of the state" of Missouri. See, e.g., Mo. State. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Credit Suisse, New York Branch, No. 09-4224-CV-C-NKL, 2010 WL 318652, at *6 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 21, 2010) (granting retirement system's motion to remand because the system was an arm of the state which destroyed diversity jurisdiction); Scott v. Pub. Sch. Ret. Sys. of Mo., No. 09-4241-CV-C-NKL, 2010 WL 3749210, at *7-8 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 21, 20100) (granting motion to dismiss claims against retirement system on the ground that system was an arm of the state that could not be sued for damages in federal court). Taken together under this Circuit's arm-of-state rubric, MPERS is an arm of the state of Missouri.