In re James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson, Debtors. James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson v. United States, 917 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
In re James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson, Debtors. James C. Pearson, Ida J. Pearson v. United States, 917 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Celotex Corp. v. AIU Ins. (In Re Celotex Corp.), 152 B.R. 667 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1993)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1216 Determining sovereign immunity for governmental units under the code10 citing casesreading the "tea leaves” and holding that "governmental units are immune to damage actions arising from violations of the automatic stay1 citing court put it this way
  • Celotex Corp. v. AIU Ins. (In Re Celotex Corp.), 152 B.R. 667 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1993).published
    Nonetheless, if the tea leaves are to be read (Pearson v. United States (In re Pearson), 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992)), this Court views the application of the Public Ri…
  • In re Jones, 152 B.R. 155 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1993).published
    Cf. In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992) (“[r]eading the tea leaves” to anticipate how the Supreme Court would rule on the issue before it).
  • Davis v. Internal Revenue Serv., 136 B.R. 414 (E.D. Va. 1992).published
    (reading the "tea leaves” and holding that "governmental units are immune to damage actions arising from violations of the automatic stay)
  • Hankerson v. United States Dep't of Educ. (In Re Hankerson), 133 B.R. 711 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1991).published
    In Rinehart, supra, 887 F.2d at 170 , the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that, since “the Court’s opinion refers to the federal government as well,” its analysis that § 106(c) does not waive sovereign immunity as to the states “is e…
  • Price v. United States (In Re Price), 130 B.R. 259 (N.D. Ill. 1991).published 2 cites
    In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990) (emphasis in original), pet. for cert filed (Jan. 28, 1991).
  • Mason v. Zorn Indus., Inc. (In Re Underground Storage Tank Technical Servs. Grp., Inc.), 212 B.R. 564 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997).published
    See In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 918 , 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992) (“Heading the tea leaves” to anticipate how the Supreme Court would decide the issue under consideration); cf. King…
  • Medicar Ambulance Co. v. Shalala (In Re Medicar Ambulance Co.), 166 B.R. 918 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1994).published
    See e.g., In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992). 11 .
  • In re Univ. Med. Ctr., 973 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1992).published
    See, e.g., In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992); In re Parr Meadows Racing Ass'n, 880 F.2d 1540 , 1545 (2nd Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.C…
  • Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan (In re Univ. Med. Ctr.), 973 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1992).published
    See, e.g., In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992); In re Parr Meadows Racing Ass’n, 880 F.2d 1540, 1545 (2nd Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 , 110 S.Ct. 86…
  • In re Husher, 131 B.R. 550 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).published
    See, e.g., In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1990); Small Business Administration v. Rinehart, 887 F.2d 165, 170 (8th Cir.1989).
At page 1215 Determining governmental immunity from bankruptcy code violations4 citing casesKOZINSKI, Circuit Judge: This ease presents an issue of first impression in this circuit: Is the United States immune from suit for money damages for violating…opening of page *1215 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • In re Howard Carl Gustafson, Jr., Debtor. California State Univ., Fresno v. Howard Carl Gustafson, Jr., 934 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1991).published
    See Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept. of Income Maintenance, 492 U.S. 96 , 109 S.Ct. 2818, 2822 , 106 L.Ed.2d 76 (1989); Pearson v. United States, 917 F.2d 1215, 1215-16 (9th Cir.1990), petition for cert. filed, No. 90-1208 (Jan. 28, 1991).
  • Washington v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Washington), 172 B.R. 415 (D. Ga. 1994).published
    See In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1215-16 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992); U.S. v. McPeck, 910 F.2d 509, 511 (8th Cir.1990). .
  • Matter of Washington, 172 B.R. 415 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1994).published
    See In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1215-16 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992); U.S. v. McPeck, 910 F.2d 509, 511 (8th Cir.1990). [7] Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fi…
  • Flynn v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In Re Flynn), 169 B.R. 1007 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1994).published
    See In re Pearson, 917 F.2d 1215, 1215-16 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1291 , 117 L.Ed.2d 514 (1992); U.S. v. McPeck, 910 F.2d 509, 511 (8th Cir.1990). 8 .
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re James C. PEARSON, Ida J. Pearson, Debtors. James C. PEARSON, Ida J. Pearson, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
89-35819.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Oct 30, 1990.
Published opinion
917 F.2d 1215
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18993
1990 WL 163964
Barry L. Taub, Eugene, Or., for plaintiff s-appellants., John A. Dudeck, Jr., Atty., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Canby, Kozinski, Trott.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

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:

Lead Opinion

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:

This ease 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. § 362(a)?

A. Bankruptcy Code section 106(c) provides that “governmental units” are[*1216] 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 provi-sion_” 11 U.S.C. § 106(c) (emphasis added). The Code’s automatic stay provision, in turn, operates against all “entities,” 11 U.S.C. § 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. § 101(26), it is bound by the stay. So far, everyone agrees.

B. The plurality opinion m 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. 109 S.Ct. 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.

1

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.

Concurrence

TROTT, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.