In re James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson, Debtors. James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson v. United States
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Price v. United States (In re Price) (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1991)
- Hankerson v. United States Department of Education (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1992)
- Hankerson v. United States Department of Education (In re Hankerson) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1991)
- In re Tyson (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida 1992)
- In re Spencer (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California 1991)
- Cowart v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Cowart) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia 1990)
- In re Howard Carl Gustafson, Jr., Debtor. California State University, Fresno v. Howard Carl Gustafson, Jr. (9th Cir. 1991)
- In re Everett (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina 1991)
- Indiana Department of Revenue v. Williams (District Court, S.D. Indiana 2003)
- Mason v. Zorn Industries, Inc. (In re Underground Storage Tank Technical Services Group, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan 1997)
- Georgia v. Bell (In re Bell) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia 1997)
- United States v. Fingers (In re Fingers) (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1994)
- Medicar Ambulance Co. v. Shalala (In re Medicar Ambulance Co.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California 1994)
- Flynn v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Flynn) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia 1994)
- In re Christensen (District Court, D. Oregon 1994)
- Matter of Washington (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia 1994)
- Washington v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Washington) (United States District Court for the District of Georgia 1994)
- In re Jones (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan 1993)
- Celotex Corp. v. AIU Insurance (In re Celotex Corp.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida 1993)
- Coats v. Vawter (In re Coats) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas 1993)
- In re University Medical Center (3d Cir. 1992)
- In re Keith v. Pinkstaff Linda L. Pinkstaff, Debtors. Keith v. Pinkstaff Linda L. Pinkstaff v. United States (9th Cir. 1992)
- In re Stuber (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas 1992)
- Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. v. United States (In re Pullman Construction Industries, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois 1992)
- Nichols v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Nichols) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
23 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1535, 20 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1949,
Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,671
In re James C. PEARSON, Ida J. Pearson, Debtors.
James C. PEARSON, Ida J. Pearson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 89-35819.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 1990.
Decided Oct. 30, 1990.
Barry L. Taub, Eugene, Or., for plaintiffs-appellants.
John A. Dudeck, Jr., Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:
This case presents an issue of first impression in this circuit: Is the United States immune from suit for money damages for violating the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)?
A. Bankruptcy Code section 106(c) provides that "governmental units" are bound by any code provision that "contains 'creditor', 'entity ', or 'governmental unit' ... [and by] a determination of the court of an issue arising under such a provision...." 11 U.S.C. Sec. 106(c) (emphasis added). The Code's automatic stay provision, in turn, operates against all "entities," 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a); it therefore binds all governmental units pursuant to section 106(c). Because the United States is a governmental unit, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(26), it is bound by the stay. So far, everyone agrees.
B. The plurality opinion in Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept. of Income Maintenance, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 2818, 106 L.Ed.2d 76 (1989) (White, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and O'Connor & Kennedy, JJ.), held that section 106(c) only waives sovereign immunity for purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief; it does not waive immunity from suit for money damages. Id. at 2822-23. While Hoffman dealt with the eleventh amendment immunity of the states, the plurality's reasoning is equally applicable to the immunity of the United States. Small Business Admin. v. Rinehart, 887 F.2d 165, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1989).
While other courts have found this rationale sufficient, see, e.g., id. at 169-70, we know that four is less than five. We therefore turn to the reasoning of the four Hoffman dissenters.1 They concluded that section 106(c) did purport to waive the government's immunity from suit for money judgments. However, they also noted that the Bankruptcy Code provision permitting damages awards for violation of the automatic stay, section 362(h), does not include any of the three magic words of section 106(c), and therefore does not apply to governmental units. Hoffman, 109 S.Ct. at 2826 n. 4 (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, Blackmun & Stevens, JJ., dissenting). Although a footnote in a dissent is not exactly a holding, we have no reason to doubt that one or more of the Hoffman dissenters would adhere to this rationale. It therefore appears that a majority of the Supreme Court would hold that governmental units are immune to damages actions arising from violations of the automatic stay. Reading the tea leaves, we so hold.
AFFIRMED.
TROTT, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.
Justice Scalia joined neither the plurality nor the dissent. His rationale, that Congress does not have the power to abrogate the states' eleventh amendment immunity, Hoffman, 109 S.Ct. at 2824 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment), has no application here
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.