ÿWPCú, `Ó)4(Ùa] ïYì;ï …mCÚg³V’ð¾~öƒhÇ Ø™a!öU*ÿw¾±™±»!ƱJû$ÔÑ®é$ï²2&ß7ªôê1}U»oƒzÐGøZÕÓ;ú¢L .w³Q-¤/Ïð*â#]…>UÂf ‹òb,Tá~^Ìá4¸\øf>x”ç³X)XÆl­g€®·gI w؃C*¹k+?0Á5I,{R¥·Í]ÖІé«Ñ Ip·«%È…kµaXx˜—Ñré Ø•Q+»z–Ò1“¾Öa@§€Ç£§ÚÜޜà I›®L=63uØæèF2¾·nF¹(ºù•½¹VÑ‚î(\?cg-ÂoŸS´¢ô?{ŸHä;T<ºŸ(@Ç÷³˜ò¨ZL×xøP({¦eP1Néa†ðjj•GŸÄuƒÕ{aöÅð$éÀ)fÚP¥¶‡ä”«×°#‘ÇçtîÇÓœ"µXAë,eŒá×Xü.6|©N¯¥a6Tž€£V}Dw†"ûÙÂÔøá“•[Áº,ÖŠ¾¾¸èi6ûˆÞbT–¥Øê„*Š`DB')&bÕm5tGÖ˜'{<È+Mò+‚¼›’ žæt¸@šj ô&.„¾^A`#Á@UF %G 0YM U8¦ UNÞ UF, ^ r w~ 4‚ – ¥ m§ ×¾ 0 ©• 0 D> E‚ f„ a† ,š Æœá }†NŠbŒ‚””>""YT&T&T&T&T&T&T&T& B­(­(­(­(­(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(Ê(ñÒ(Ò(Ò(Ò(Ò(Ò(Ò(Ò(7Ã+˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0<4šÛ 9Z+.Courier New RegularX(1 z$¡¡Ô€XwXXXÔÔUSUS.,Ô<4šÛ 9Z+ Courier New vÖr Z‹6Times New Roman Regular´¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regularªn.s Êu—-ê:i¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÍÝ ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú*Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€the€Northern€District€of€Illinois,€sitting€by€designation.(Y(2:!$¤¤Ý ƒ z!ÝÔ€X6­XXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóøÀTABLE A "Ý ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€This€circuit€has€consistently€held€that€Puerto€Rico€enjoysÐ ° Ðimmunity€from€suit€equivalent€to€that€afforded€to€the€States€underÐ †Ö Ðthe€Eleventh€Amendment€(òòseeóó€òòArecibo€Cmty.€Health€Care,óó€270€F.3d€atÐ \¬ Ð21€n.3).€€For€the€reasons€stated€later€in€the€text,€we€declineÐ 2‚ ÐPlaintiffs'€invitation€to€reconsider€that€principle. Ý ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Plaintiffs€do€point€to€òòAnderson€&€Middleton€Lumber€Co.óó€v.Ð ° ÐòòQuinault€Indian€Nationóó,€901€P.2d€1060,€1063„64€(Wash.€Ct.€App.Ð †Ö Ð1995)€as€applying€the€"time€of€filing"€rule€in€the€sovereignÐ \¬ Ðimmunity€context.€€òòAndersonóó€held€that€jurisdiction€properlyÐ 2‚ Ðcontinued€over€a€property€action€to€partition€and€to€quiet€titleÐ X Ðdespite€Ô_ÔQuinaultÔ_Ô€Indian€Nation's€mid„litigation€purchase€of€theÐ Þ. Ðland€and€its€substitution€as€defendant€for€the€prior€landowners,Ð ´  Ðprivate€individuals.€€Although€òòAndersonóó€ruled€on€personalÐ Š Ú Ðjurisdiction€grounds€and€did€not€separately€address€waiver,€itÐ ` ° Ðspecifically€noted€that€upon€bringing€suit€the€plaintiff€had€filedÐ 6 †  Ða€lis€pendens€(providing€notice€that€the€outcome€of€the€actionÐ  \  Ðwould€bind€subsequent€transferees)€and€that€the€warranty€deed€forÐ â 2  Ðthe€tribe's€purchase€of€the€land€made€conveyance€subject€to€thatÐ ¸  Ðlis€pendens.€€All€of€this€suggests€that,€as€opposed€to€the€instantÐ ŽÞ  Ðcase,€the€tribe€chose€to€purchase€the€land€subject€to€the€specificÐ d´  Ðcourt€action--voluntary€conduct€that€waived€its€immunity€from€thatÐ :Š  Ðsuitòòóó.€ ’Ý ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Justice€Kennedy's€òòSchachtóó€concurrence€argues€in€part€thatÐ ° Ðthe€Court€should€adjust€its€Eleventh€Amendment€jurisprudence€toÐ †Ö Ðtrack€more€closely€its€treatment€of€personal€jurisdiction€(òòSchachtóó,Ð \¬ Ð524€U.S.€at€395).€€In€particular,€such€a€revision€would€remove€theÐ 2‚  Ðunfair€litigation€advantages€that€arise€from€allowing€States€toÐ ° Ðraise€the€bar€of€Eleventh€Amendment€immunity€for€the€first€time€onÐ †Ö Ðappeal€(òòidóó.€at€394).€Although€òòÔ_ÔLapidesÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòBd.€of€Regents€of€Univ.Ð \¬ ÐÔ_ÔSysÔ_Ô.óó,€535€U.S.€613,€122€Ô_ÔS.CtÔ_Ô.€1640,€1645€(2002)€addressed€some€ofÐ 2‚ ÐJustice€Kennedy's€concerns,€its€relatively€narrow€holding€did€notÐ X Ðalter€the€hybrid€nature€of€the€Eleventh€Amendment:€States'€immunityÐ Þ. Ðunder€that€Amendment€remains€sui€generis. ÿÝ ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€32€P.R.€Laws€Ann.€ðð3077€(1999)€authorizes€individuals€toÐ ° Ðsue€Puerto€Rico€in€the€Commonwealth's€own€courts€according€to€aÐ †Ö Ðnumber€of€conditions.€€But€nothing€in€that€statute€waives€PuertoÐ \¬ ÐRico's€sovereign€immunity€from€suit€in€federal€court€without€itsÐ 2‚ Ðconsent,€as€òòCollege€Ô_ÔSavÔ_Ô.€Bankóó,€527€U.S.€at€670€would€require.€€AndÐ X  Ðthe€language€in€Act's€Article€7€that€excepts€Department's€"capacityÐ ° Ðto...be€sued"€from€the€"same€rights€and€powers"€possessed€by€theÐ †Ö ÐOffice€could€certainly€be€read€as€an€intended€preservation€of€theÐ \¬ Ðright€of€sovereign€immunity--though€we€express€no€ultimate€view,€ofÐ 2‚ Ðcourse,€as€to€its€amenability€to€suit€in€the€courts€of€Puerto€Rico. úÝ ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€It€is€true€that€Act€106€was€enacted€while€Plaintiffs'Ð ° Ðsecond€motion€to€dismiss€was€still€pending.€€But€the€risk€remainedÐ †Ö Ðthat€the€district€court€would€rule--as€it€did€approximately€twoÐ \¬ Ðmonths€later--that€the€Office€was€not€entitled€to€the€protection€ofÐ 2‚ ÐPuerto€Rico's€own€immunity.- ù- Ó 2 ' Turner0Turner .    4Ý ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Because€it€has€become€customary€to€use€the€EleventhÐ ° ÐAmendment€as€a€shorthand€reference€even€though€it€does€notÐ †Ö Ðliterally€apply€by€its€terms€to€suits€against€a€State€(or€in€thisÐ \¬  Ðinstance€Puerto€Rico)€by€its€own€citizens,€this€opinion€will€alsoÐ ° Ðspeak€in€Eleventh€Amendment€terms€in€many€instances.€€When€itÐ †Ö Ðrefers€to€"sovereign€immunity,"€it€does€so€consistently€with€theÐ \¬ Ðongoing€and€current€jurisprudence€of€the€Supreme€Court's€majorityÐ 2‚ Ðopinions,€exemplified€by€such€cases€as€òòÔ_ÔPennhurstÔ_Ôóó€and€òòÔ_ÔAtascaderoÔ_ÔÐ X ÐState€Hosp.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔScanlonÔ_Ôóó,€473€U.S.€234,€238€(1985)(citing€and€quotingÐ Þ. ÐòòÔ_ÔPennhurstÔ_Ôóó€in€those€terms). OÝ ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€òòSeminole€Tribeóó€and€its€progeny€have€not€done€away€with€thatÐ ° Ðinitial€requirement€for€abrogation,€but€have€rather€added€a€secondÐ †Ö Ðstep€to€the€judicial€inquiry:€whether€Congress€acted€pursuant€to€aÐ \¬ Ðvalid€exercise€of€power.€€Because€we€find€that€Plaintiffs€fall€atÐ 2‚ Ðthe€first€hurdle,€there€is€no€need€to€approach€(let€alone€overleap)Ð X Ðthe€second. d  çÝ ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Three€post„òòAldenóódecisions€in€this€Circuit€(òòArecibo€Cmty.Ð ° ÐHealth€Care,€Inc.óó,€270€F.3d€at€21€n.3;€òòU.S.I.€Props.€Corp.óó€v.€òòM.D.Ð †Ö  ÐConstr.€Co.óó,€230€F.3d€489,€495€n.3€(1st€Cir.€2000);€òòJusino€MercadoóóÐ ° Ðv.€òòPuerto€Ricoóó,€214€F.3d€34,€39€(1st€Cir.€2000))€have€adhered€toÐ †Ö Ðthe€position€stated€in€the€preceding€paragraph€of€the€text.€Ð \¬ ÐIndeed,€the€first€and€third€of€those€cases€specifically€cite€òòAldenóóÐ 2‚ Ðin€their€exposition€of€Eleventh€Amendment€law. -Ý ƒ:!$ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€In€July€1999€the€case€was€reassigned€to€Senior€JudgeÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔGierboliniÔ_Ô€after€Judge€Cerezo€had€recused€herself.Ý ƒ z!ÝÔ€X(ÁXXXÔÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€(ÁXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑe°ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡X=õXXX(ÁÔÔ‡°ä]°XX=õÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ#†X=õX°°ä]g#ÔÔ‡„HH„XX=õÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ#†X=õX„„HHÇ#ÔÐ „Ô ÐÓ<ÓÌßA€') °°` dE<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†X(ÁXXX=õH#ÔÔ‡X(ÁXXX(ÁÔÌNo.€02„1010€Ð µ  ÐÌÓ  Óà@@ìàNORMA€I.€Ô_ÔMAYSONETÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔROBLESÔ_Ô;€ANGEL€RAMON€MARTINEZ„Ô_ÔDOMINGUEZÔ_Ô;Ð a ± Ðà@@øøìàCARMEN€M.€Ô_ÔROBLESÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔCOLLAZOÔ_Ô;€LYDIA€HERNANDEZ„DE„LEON;€Ð 7 ‡ ÐÔ_ÔCAMILOÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGINEZÔ_Ô„PEREZ;€JESUS€Ô_ÔOCASIOÔ_Ô„DE„LA„ROSA;€for€themselves€andÐ  ]  Ðon€behalf€ofà@@  ìà€a€class€of€similarly€situated€individuals,Ð ã 3  ÐÓÓÌà@ÄÄìàPlaintiffs„Appellants,ˆÐ ß  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ ;‹  ÐÌà@¼¼ìàANTONIO€J.€Ô_ÔCABREROÔ_Ô,€as€Trustee€for€Urban€Renewal€andˆÐ ç7 Ðà@0 0 ìàHousing€Corporation,€Puerto€Rico,ˆÐ ½  ÐÌà@xx!ìàDefendant„Appellee.ˆÐ i¹ ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<` AßÐ e ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ úJ Ðà@¨ ¨ ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€PUERTO€RICOˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà@ppìà[Hon.€Ô_ÔGilbertoÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGierboliniÔ_Ô,€òòSenior€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ |Ì ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<'` AßÐ (x ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ  ] ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð ¹   ÐHoward,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð ß! Ðand€Ô_ÔShadurÔ_Ô,àÐ @ à׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú*Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòSenior€District€Judgeóó.Ð e µ" ÐÌ€€€€€ßA€') °°` dE<¡"` AßÐ "a$ ÐÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†X(ÁXXX(ÁÕ#ÔÌÑ€Ñà  àòòRobert€N.€Hillóó,€for€appellants.Ð ½# & ÐÌà  àòòEugenia€I.€Ô_ÔOrsiniÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHerenciaÔ_Ôóó,€for€appellee.Ð i%¹ ( ÐÔ‡X(ÁXXX(ÁÔà  àÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ 'e"*'e" ‹‹ÐÓÎ ÓÐ SIy'É"+  gâ@37693„„‰ gâ@‰‹‹SÐòòóóÌMarch€14,€2003Ð O(Ÿ#- ÐÐ RHC%)u$."  gâ@37693  gâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(y'É"/  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÐ  +*{%/ ÐÔ_ÔÓ  ÓÓÓÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*ÓÑ8€(ÁXXdÖXdÖ8Ñà ` àò òSHADUR,€òòSenior€District€Judgeóó.ó ó€Ô#†X(ÁXXX(Áä #ÔÔ‡X(ÁXXX(ÁÔ€In€January€1997€thisÐ ° Ðaction€was€brought€on€behalf€of€a€putative€class€comprisingÐ xÈ Ðhomeowners€and€tenants€of€a€low€income€housing€complex€in€Manati,Ð $t ÐPuerto€Rico,€who€sued€Antonio€Cabrero€as€Trustee€for€the€UrbanÐ Ð  ÐRenewal€Housing€Corporation€Accounts€Liquidation€Office€of€PuertoÐ | Ì ÐRico€(the€"Office"),€an€entity€created€in€1991€to€liquidate€theÐ ( x  Ðproceeds€of€the€extinct€Puerto€Rico€Urban€Renewal€and€HousingÐ Ô$  ÐCorporation€("CRUV")(Act€55,€August€9,€1991,€17€P.R.€Laws€Ann.Ð €Ð  Ððððð27„27t).€€Plaintiffs€sued€under€42€U.S.C.€ðððð1983€and€1985€andÐ ,|  Ðadded,€under€the€auspices€of€28€U.S.C.€ðð1367(a),€a€number€of€stateÐ Ø( Ðlaw€claims€alleging€that€CRUV€used,€and€failed€to€disclose€to€themÐ „Ô Ðthe€presence€of€asbestos€and€lead€within,€the€units.Ð 0€ Ðà ` àAfter€two€earlier€motions€to€dismiss€had€been€denied,€theÐ Ü, ÐOffice€filed€a€third€motion€to€dismiss--this€time€informing€theÐ ˆØ Ðdistrict€court€and€Plaintiffs€that€in€the€interim€the€Puerto€RicoÐ 4„ ÐLegislature€had€passed€Act€106,€which€had€dissolved€the€Office€andÐ à0 Ðtransferred€CRUV's€assets€to€the€Department€of€Housing€of€theÐ ŒÜ  ÐCommonwealth€of€Puerto€Rico€("Department")€effective€June€30,€1998Ð 8!ˆ" Ð(17€P.R.€Laws€Ann.€ðððð27aa„27jj).€€Because€the€Office€said€thatÐ ä"4$ ÐDepartment€was€now€the€real€party€in€interest,€it€urged€that€asÐ $à& Ðsuch€Department€was€immune€from€suit€under€the€Eleventh€Amendment.€Ð <&Œ!( ÐLater€the€Office€amended€its€motion€to€assert€that€the€CommonwealthÐ è'8#* Ðâ âof€Puerto€Rico€("the€Commonwealth"€or€"Puerto€Rico")€was€theÐ ”)ä$, ÐOffice's€true€successor,€coupling€that€amendment€with€a€reassertionÐ ° Ðof€Eleventh€Amendment€immunity.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àAfter€reviewing€the€parties'€submissions,€the€districtÐ X ÐcourtØØ×ƒ_×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€issued€an€October€26,€2001€opinion€and€order€stating€thatÐ ´  ÐDepartment€should€be€substituted€for€the€Office€as€a€successor€inÐ ` ° Ðinterest€pursuant€to€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€("Rule")€25(c).€€InÐ  \  Ðsubstantive€terms€that€opinion€went€on€to€hold€the€action€barred€byÐ ¸  Ðthe€Eleventh€Amendment€because€Department,€as€an€arm€of€the€state,Ð d´  Ðenjoyed€immunity€from€suit--and€that€despite€its€interjection€intoÐ `  Ðthe€pending€litigation€as€a€successor€to€a€party€that€had€not€beenÐ ¼  Ðentitled€to€immunity€under€the€Eleventh€Amendment.€€€AccordinglyÐ h¸ Ðthe€district€court€granted€the€Office's€amended€motion€to€dismiss,Ð d Ðand€Plaintiffs€now€appeal.€€We€affirm€the€district€court'sÐ À Ðdismissal€of€the€action€on€such€immunity€grounds.Ð l¼ Ðà@´´!ìàòòStandard€of€ReviewóóˆÐ h Ðà ` àWhether€the€district€court€correctly€held€that€DepartmentÐ Ä Ðenjoyed€immunity€under€the€Eleventh€Amendment--or€more€precisely,Ð pÀ  Ðunder€the€limitation€that€the€States'€sovereign€immunity€imposes€onÐ !l" Ðthe€federal€judicial€power€established€in€Article€III€(see,€e.g.,Ð È"$ ÐòòPennhurst€State€Sch.€&€Hosp.óó€v.€òòHaldermanóó,€465€U.S.€89,€98„99,€116„Ð t$Ä& Ð17€(1984))׃<×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×--is€a€question€of€law.€€We€therefore€review€the€lowerÐ  &p!( Ðcourt's€ruling€de€novo€(òòseeóó€òòArecibo€Cmty.€Health€Care,€Inc.óó€v.Ð ° ÐòòPuerto€Ricoóó,€270€F.3d€17,€22€(1st€Cir.€2001)).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àà ¨ àà@””%ìàòòBackgroundóóˆÐ X Ðà ` àBecause€this€appeal€presents€a€pure€jurisdictionalÐ ´  Ðquestion,€it€is€unnecessary€to€recite€the€facts€as€they€pertain€toÐ ` ° Ðthe€merits€of€Plaintiffs'€allegations.€€Instead€we€will€review€theÐ  \  Ðbidding€as€to€the€relevant€agency€history€and€the€procedural€pathÐ ¸  Ðof€this€litigation,€then€turn€to€the€law.Ð d´  Ðà ` àCRUV€was€created€by€the€Puerto€Rico€legislature€as€aÐ `  Ðpublic€corporation€in€1957€to€administer€and€develop€low„costÐ ¼  Ðprivate€housing€construction€in€the€Commonwealth.€€In€1991€theÐ h¸ Ðlegislature€dissolved€CRUV€(by€Act€55€of€August€9,€1991,€17€P.R.Ð d ÐLaws€Ann.€ðððð27„27t),€instead€creating€the€Office€and€charging€itÐ À Ðwith€overseeing€the€liquidation€of€CRUV's€accounts€and€the€transferÐ l¼ Ðof€records€and€documents€to€Department.€€Among€other€provisions,Ð h Ðthe€Office€was€granted€the€authority€to€sue€and€be€sued,€with€theÐ Ä Ðunderstanding€that€it€would€exist€only€so€long€as€necessary€forÐ pÀ  ÐCRUV's€liquidation€(17€P.R.€Laws€Ann.€ðð27r).Ð !l" Ðà ` àPlaintiffs'€1997€Complaint€asserted€a€number€of€claimsÐ È"$ Ðagainst€the€Office€that€stemmed€from€CRUV's€use€of€asbestos€andÐ t$Ä& Ðlead€in€its€public€housing€units€and€its€failure€to€disclose€thatÐ ° Ðuse€to€Plaintiffs.€€Plaintiffs€then€amended€their€Complaint€toÐ \¬ Ðclarify€that€the€suit€was€brought€against€the€Office€for€its€ownÐ X Ðacts€of€alleged€misconduct€as€well€as€in€its€capacity€as€theÐ ´  Ðsuccessor€to€CRUV.€€Ð ` ° Ðà ` àAfter€a€first€motion€to€dismiss€on€grounds€unrelated€toÐ  \  Ðimmunity€was€denied,€the€Office€filed€a€second€motion€to€dismiss€inÐ ¸  ÐAugust€1997€on€the€predicate€that€it€was€immune€from€suit€under€theÐ d´  ÐEleventh€Amendment.€€While€that€motion€was€pending,€PlaintiffsÐ `  Ðsought€a€preliminary€injunction€to€prevent€the€Office€from€reducingÐ ¼  Ðits€legal€claims€reserve€and€transferring€its€assets€to€theÐ h¸ ÐCommonwealth's€treasury.€€Ð d Ðà ` àOn€September€3,€1998€the€district€court€ruled€on€thoseÐ À Ðmotions.€€First€it€denied€the€motion€to€dismiss,€ruling€that€theÐ l¼ ÐOffice€was€not€an€arm€of€the€state€entitled€to€immunity€under€theÐ h ÐEleventh€Amendment.€€Then€it€denied€Plaintiffs'€motion€forÐ Ä Ðpreliminary€injunction,€but€it€ordered€the€Office€to€ensure€thatÐ pÀ  ÐCRUV's€assets€would€remain€available€should€they€be€necessary€toÐ !l" Ðsatisfy€a€judgment€in€this€case.€€Ð È"$ Ðà ` àIt€turned€out€that€two€months€before€the€issuance€ofÐ t$Ä& Ðthose€rulings€Act€106€had€dissolved€the€Office€and€had€effectivelyÐ  &p!( Ðtransferred€CRUV's€millions€of€dollars€in€surplus€funds,€includingÐ Ì'#* Ðthe€millions€that€had€been€set€up€as€a€reserve€fund€for€its€legalÐ x)È$, Ðliabilities,€to€Department.€€Based€on€that€legislation,€the€OfficeÐ $+t&. Ðfiled€a€third€motion€to€dismiss€on€September€15,€1998--this€timeÐ ° Ðasserting€that€Department,€now€the€real€party€in€interest,€wasÐ \¬ Ðentitled€to€Eleventh€Amendment€immunity.€€Responding€to€thatÐ X Ðmotion,€Plaintiffs€requested€that€the€district€court€substituteÐ ´  ÐDepartment€for€the€defunct€Office€under€Rule€25(d)(1)€and€urgedÐ ` ° Ðthat€such€substitution€did€not€oust€the€court€of€federalÐ  \  Ðjurisdiction€or€permit€Department€to€reassert€Eleventh€AmendmentÐ ¸  Ðimmunity.€€Then€the€Office€amended€its€motion€to€assert€that€theÐ d´  ÐCommonwealth,€rather€than€Department,€was€the€proper€defendantÐ `  Ðunder€Act€106€and€that€òòitóó€was€immune€from€the€suit€regardless€ofÐ ¼  Ðits€successor€status.€€Ð h¸ Ðà ` àAs€stated€earlier,€the€district€court€bought€into€theÐ d ÐOffice's€Eleventh€Amendment€immunity€argument€as€to€DepartmentÐ À Ðwithout€having€to€take€that€last€step€of€treating€the€CommonwealthÐ l¼ Ðas€the€proper€party€defendant.€€Because€the€district€courtÐ h Ðconcluded€that€Department€had€not€waived€or€otherwise€forfeitedÐ Ä Ðthat€immunity€by€its€having€succeeded€the€properly€sued€Office,€theÐ pÀ  Ðcourt€granted€the€motion€to€dismiss.Ð !l" Ðà ` àAlthough€Plaintiffs€now€appeal€that€involuntaryÐ È"$ Ðdismissal,€certain€aspects€of€the€district€court's€ruling€are€notÐ t$Ä& Ðchallenged€before€us.€€Neither€party€has€appealed€the€districtÐ  &p!( Ðcourt's€application€of€Rule€25(c)€to€substitute€Department€for€theÐ Ì'#* ÐOffice€as€a€successor€in€interest.€€Neither€do€they€dispute€theÐ x)È$, Ðconclusion€that€Department,€an€executive€department€of€theÐ $+t&. Ðgovernment€of€Puerto€Rico€lacking€an€independent€juridicalÐ ° Ðpersonality€(òòseeóó€òòFred€Reyesóó€v.€òòEstado€Libre€de€Puerto€Ricoóó,€2000Ð \¬ ÐTSPR€49€(P.R.€2000)),€ò òó óis€generally€sheltered€by€Puerto€Rico'sÐ X Ðimmunity€from€federal€suit.€€Instead€the€issue€on€appeal€is€whetherÐ ´  ÐDepartment,€interjected€into€the€ongoing€litigation€by€way€of€aÐ ` ° ÐPuerto€Rican€statute,€may€successfully€assert€such€immunity€when€itÐ  \  Ðcould€not€have€been€invoked€by€its€predecessor€in€interest,€theÐ ¸  ÐOffice.€€We€now€turn€to€that€question.Ð d´  Ðà@´´!ìàòòEleventh€AmendmentóóˆÐ `  Ðà ` àUnder€the€Eleventh€Amendment€the€"Judicial€power€of€theÐ ¼  ÐUnited€States€shall€not€be€construed€to€extend€to€any€suit€in€lawÐ h¸ Ðor€equity,€commenced€or€prosecuted€against€one€of€the€United€StatesÐ d Ðby€Citizens€of€another€State,€or€by€Citizens€or€Subjects€of€anyÐ À ÐForeign€State."€€Long€interpreted€as€an€affirmation€of€state׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð l¼ Ðsovereign€immunity€as€a€limit€on€Article€III's€grant€of€federalÐ h Ðjurisdiction,€the€principles€that€òòHansóó€v.€òòLouisianaóó,€134€U.S.€1Ð Ä Ð(1890)€drew€from€that€amendment€(despite€its€literal€text)€also€barÐ pÀ  Ða€citizen€from€bringing€a€federal€court€action€against€his€or€herÐ !l" Ðown€Stateòòóó.€€Sovereign€immunity€for€suits€"against€one€of€the€UnitedÐ È"$ ÐStates"€also€extends€to€bar€suits€against€state€agents€andÐ t$Ä& Ðinstrumentalities€when€the€action€is€in€essence€one€for€theÐ  &p!( Ðrecovery€of€money€from€the€State€(òòRegents€of€the€Univ.€of€Cal.óó€v.Ð ° ÐòòDoeóó,€519€U.S.€425,€429€(1997)).Ð \¬ Ѐ€à ` àThere€are,€however,€two€general€exceptions€to€the€thus„Ð X Ðextended€reach€of€the€Eleventh€Amendment€(òòCollege€Sav.€Bankóó€v.€òòFla.Ð ´  ÐPrepaid€Postsecondary€Educ.€Expense€Bd.óó,€527€U.S.€666,€670€(1999)).€Ð ` ° ÐFirst,€Congress€may€abrogate€a€State's€immunity€by€expresslyÐ  \  Ðauthorizing€such€a€suit€pursuant€to€a€valid€exercise€of€powerÐ ¸  Ð(òòidóó.).€€Second,€a€State€may€waive€its€sovereign€immunity€byÐ d´  Ðconsenting€to€be€sued€in€federal€court€(òòidóó.).€€At€issue€here€is€theÐ `  Ðsecond€of€those€two€potential€exceptions:€whether€Puerto€RicoÐ ¼  Ðwaived€its€immunity€so€as€to€permit€this€federal€court€litigation.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àBefore€we€turn€to€Plaintiffs'€waiver€argument,€we€willÐ d Ðfirst€address€Plaintiffs'€separate€contention€that€DepartmentÐ À Ðshould€not€be€entitled€to€raise€the€shield€of€immunity€because€itÐ l¼ Ðentered€the€case€midstream€as€a€successor€to€the€Office,€an€entityÐ h Ðthat€was€itself€outside€the€scope€of€that€immunity.€€PlaintiffsÐ Ä Ðassert€that€because€federal€jurisdiction€was€properly€establishedÐ pÀ  Ðover€the€Office€when€the€suit€was€initiated,€it€is€not€subject€toÐ !l" Ðouster€by€subsequent€events.€€Relatedly€Plaintiffs€argue€thatÐ È"$ ÐDepartment,€as€successor€to€the€Office€under€Rule€25€(c),€cannotÐ t$Ä& Ðinvoke€immunity€because€the€Office€itself€was€not€entitled€to€doÐ  &p!( Ðso.€€Although€creative,€Plaintiffs'€contentions€are€based€onÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âjurisdictional€and€successorship€authorities€that€insufficientlyÐ x)È$, Ðaddress€the€unique€nature€of€the€States'€sovereign€immunity€in€theÐ ° Ðcontext€of€federal€litigation.Ð \¬ Ðâ  à ` àPlaintiffs€seek€to€apply€the€so„called€"time€of€filing"Ð X Ðrule€here--the€concept€that€federal€jurisdiction€attaches€at€theÐ ´  Ðtime€when€the€action€is€commenced€and€cannot€be€ousted€by€laterÐ ` ° Ðdevelopments.€€To€be€sure,€that€principle€is€well€established€forÐ  \  Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction€(òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòValderon€Martinezóó€v.€òòHosp.Ð ¸  ÐPresbiteriano€de€la€Comunidad,€Inc.óó,€806€F.2d€1128,€1132€(1st€Cir.Ð d´  Ð1985)(diversity€of€citizenship);€òòCoventry€Sewage€Assocs.óó€v.€òòDworkinÐ `  ÐRealty€Co.óó,€71€F.3d€1,€4„6€(1st€Cir.€1995)(amount€in€controversy);Ð ¼  ÐòòChingóó€v.€òòMitre€Corp.óó,€921€F.2d€11,€13€(1st€Cir.€1990)(federalÐ h¸ Ðquestion€jurisdiction))€as€well€as€for€personal€jurisdiction€(òòseeóó,Ð d Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòExplosives€Corp.€of€Am.óó€v.€òòGarlam€Enters.€Corp.óó,€817€F.2dÐ À Ð894,€906€(1st€Cir.€1987)).€€Successorship€law€is€also€in€accord,Ð l¼ Ðfor€federal€jurisdiction€is€retained€over€Rule€25(c)€successors€inÐ h Ðinterest€that€would€not€otherwise€be€subject€to€suit€in€federalÐ Ä Ðcourt€(òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòFreeport„McMoRan€Inc.óó€v.€òòK€N€Energy,€Inc.óó,€498Ð pÀ  ÐU.S.€426,€428€(1990)(per€curiam);€òòExplosives€Corp.óóòò,€óó817€F.2d€atÐ !l" Ð906).€€Moreover,€it€is€true€that€Rule€25€(c)€substitutionÐ Ô"$$ Ðimplements€a€discretionary€determination€by€the€trial€court€toÐ €$Ð& Ðfacilitate€the€conduct€of€the€litigation,€so€it€is€a€proceduralÐ ,&|!( Ðvehicle€"not€designed€to€create€new€relationships€among€parties€toÐ Ø'(#* Ða€suit"€(òòPacamor€Bearings,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMinebea€Coóó.,€892€F.€Supp.€347,Ð „)Ô$, Ð360€(D.N.H.€1995)).€€As€such,€"the€transferee€is€brought€into€courtÐ 0+€&. Ðsolely€because€it€has€come€to€own€the€property€in€issue.€€TheÐ ° Ðmerits€of€the€case€and€the€disposition€of€the€property€are€stillÐ \¬ Ðdetermined€vis„a„vis€the€originally€named€parties"€(òòMinn.€Mining€&Ð X ÐMfg.€Co.óó€v.€òòEco€Chem,€Inc.óó,€757€F.2d€1256,€1263€(Fed.€Cir.€1985).€Ð ´  Ѐà ` àBut€none€of€those€cases€addresses€the€application€of€suchÐ ` ° Ðrules€to€a€State's€immunity€from€federal€suit,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€we€findÐ  \  ÐPlaintiffs'€attempted€analogies€to€the€current€case's€contextÐ ¸  Ðultimately€unconvincing.€€€As€to€jurisdiction,€while€the€EleventhÐ d´  ÐAmendment€has€been€described€as€a€jurisdictional€bar€with€a€"hybridÐ `  Ðnature,"€similar€in€some€respects€to€personal€jurisdiction€and€toÐ ¼  Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction€in€others,€it€is€on€all€fours€withÐ h¸ Ðneither€(òòseeóó€òòWis.€Dep't€of€Corr.óó€v.€òòSchachtóó,€524€U.S.€381,€394Ð d Ð(1998)(Kennedy,€J.,€concurring).׃Æ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Rather€it€is€"a€specific€textÐ À Ðwith€a€history€that€focuses€on€the€State's€sovereignty€vis„a„visÐ ° Ðthe€Federal€Government"€(òòLapidesóó,€122€S.Ct.€at€1646).€Unlike€aÐ \¬ Ðprivate€individual€or€corporation,€a€State€retains€its€sovereignÐ X Ðimmunity€as€a€"personal€privilege"€and,€whether€it€is€the€originalÐ ´  Ðdefendant€or€is€added€as€a€party€later,€it€cannot€be€suedÐ ` ° Ðinvoluntarily€(òòClarkóó€v.€òòBarnardóó,€108€U.S.€436,€447„48€(1883)).€Ð  \  Ðà ` àAs€to€successorship,€Department€is€an€arm€of€the€State,Ð ¸  Ðregardless€of€its€late€arrival€at€the€courthouse€as€a€successor€inÐ d´  Ðinterest,€and€it€must€be€accorded€the€same€respect€due€a€StateÐ `  Ðunder€the€Eleventh€Amendment€(òòseeóó€òòKrollóó€v.€òòBd.€of€Trustees€of€theÐ ¼  ÐUniv.€of€Ill.óó,€934€F.2d€904,€909€(7th€Cir.€1991);€òòWilliamson€TowingÐ h¸ ÐCo.óó€v.€òòIllinoisóó,€534€F.2d€758,€760„61€(7th€Cir.€1976)).€€To€prevailÐ d Ðhere,€then,€Plaintiffs€must€establish€that€Puerto€Rico€waived€itsÐ À Ðown€immunity€in€light€of€those€legal€principles€by€dissolving€theÐ l¼ ÐOffice€into€Department.€€And€it€is€to€Plaintiffs'€exposition€onÐ h Ðthat€topic€and€to€the€relevant€law€on€waiver€that€we€now€turn.Ð Ä Ðà ` àPlaintiffs€argue€that€Puerto€Rico€waived€its€immunityÐ pÀ  Ðwith€respect€to€those€suits€against€the€Office€that€were€pendingÐ !l" Ðwhen€Act€106€went€into€effect.€€Early€on,€òòClarkóó,€òòóó108€U.S.€at€447„48Ð È"$ Ðestablished€that€a€State€may€waive€its€sovereign€immunity€byÐ t$Ä& Ðconsenting€to€a€suit€in€federal€court.€€Because€the€sovereign'sÐ ° Ðdecision€to€waive€such€immunity€to€suit€must€be€"altogetherÐ \¬ Ðvoluntary"€(òòCollege€Sav.€Bankóó,€527€U.S.€at€675,€quoting€òòBeersóó€v.Ð X ÐòòArkansasóó,€61€U.S.€(20€How.)€527,€529€(1858)),€the€"test€forÐ ´  Ðdetermining€whether€a€State€has€waived€its€immunity€from€federal„Ð ` ° Ðcourt€jurisdiction€is€a€stringent€one"€(òòCollege€Sav.€Bankóó,€òòidóó.,Ð  \  Ðquoting€òòAtascadero€State€Hosp.óó€v.€òòScanlonóó,€473€U.S.€234,€241Ð ¸  Ð(1985)).Ð d´  Ðà ` àòòCollege€Sav.€Bankóó€commands€that€such€waivers€must€beÐ `  Ðunequivocal.€€In€the€case€of€waiver€through€a€state€statute€orÐ ¼  Ðconstitutional€provision,€the€State€must€express€in€unmistakablyÐ h¸ Ðclear€language,€allowing€for€no€other€reasonable€construction,€thatÐ d Ðit€intends€to€submit€itself€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€federalÐ À Ðcourts€Ô#†X(ÁXXX(ÁD#ÔÔ‡X(ÁXXX(ÁÔ(òòidóó.€at€678).€€Alternatively,€a€State€may€waive€its€immunityÐ l¼ Ðby€invoking€federal€jurisdiction€voluntarily€though€affirmativeÐ h Ðlitigation€conduct€(òòidóó.€at€675„76;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòLapidesóó,€122€S.Ct.€atÐ Ä Ð1644).€Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àWe€do€not€find€that€Puerto€Rico€made€such€an€unequivocalÐ !l" Ðwaiver€here€in€either€of€those€ways.€€First,€as€the€district€courtÐ È"$ Ðcorrectly€concluded,€Act€106€does€not€include€clear€languageÐ t$Ä& Ðexpressing€Puerto€Rico's€intent€to€submit€to€the€jurisdiction€ofÐ  &p!( Ðthe€federal€court€for€suits€against€the€Office.€€€To€be€sure,€ActÐ Ì'#* Ð106€does€provide€that€lawsuits€pending€against€the€Office€at€theÐ x)È$, Ðtime€of€enactment€are€to€be€taken€over€by€Department.€€To€that€endÐ $+t&. ÐAct's€Article€4€mandates€the€transfer€to€Department€of€the€Office'sÐ ° Ð"records,€assets,€and€liabilities"€and€provides€that€"DepartmentÐ \¬ Ðshall€not€be€responsible€for€any€claim€beyond€those€passed€on€byÐ X Ðthe€Office."€€Article€5€requires€that€an€inventory€of€pendingÐ ´  Ðlawsuits€be€delivered€to€Department.€€Lastly,€Article€7€orders€theÐ ` ° ÐDepartment€of€Justice€to€support€Department€as€requested€in€suchÐ  \  Ðlawsuits€and€reads€in€part:Ð ¸  ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€Department€of€Housing€shall€have€the€sameÐ d´  Ðrights€and€powers,€except€for€the€capacity€toÐ :Š  Ðsue€and€be€sued,€and€may€raise€the€sameÐ `  Ðdefenses€used€by€the€Office€in€case€of€anyÐ æ6 Ðlitigation€or€claim€related€to€the€transferredÐ ¼  Ðassets....Ð’â` x` x ÐÌÓÓBut€none€of€that€language€about€pending€lawsuits€conveys€PuertoÐ >Ž ÐRico's€unequivocal€consent€for€such€pending€litigation€to€continueÐ ê: Ðin€federal€court€(òòseeóó€òòKrollóó,òòóó€934€F.2d€at€909„10,€reaching€the€sameÐ –æ Ðconclusion€as€to€statutory€language€governing€the€merger€of€anÐ B’ Ðathletic€association€with€an€arm€of€the€State€that€was€even€moreÐ î> Ðexplicit€as€to€the€continuation€of€pending€lawsuits).€€€Ð šê Ðà ` àAlthough€one€permissible€reading€of€Act€106€may€be€thatÐ F –! Ðclaims€against€the€Office€should€not€be€affected€at€all€by€itsÐ ò!B# Ðdissolution,€another--also€permissible--would€allow€for€theÐ ž#î% Ðcontinuation€of€such€pending€lawsuits€against€Department€in€PuertoÐ J%š ' ÐRico's€courts,€but€not€in€federal€courts.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Indeed,€it€does€notÐ ö&F") Ðrequire€a€particularly€jaundiced€eye€to€deduce€from€the€Act's€textÐ ° Ðthat€the€Puerto€Rico€legislature€acted€to€dissolve€the€Office€andÐ \¬ Ðtransfer€the€claims€to€Department€with€the€precise€goal€of€raisingÐ X Ðthe€shield€of€immunity.׃¾×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Such€jurisdictional€game„playing€would€beÐ ´  Ðbeyond€the€pale€for€any€private€litigant,€and€it€is€not€a€newÐ ` ° Ðstrategy€for€the€Commonwealth€(òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòFutura€Dev.€of€PuertoÐ  \  ÐRicoóó€v.€òòEstado€Libre€Asociado€de€Puerto€Ricoóó,€144€F.3d€7,€14€(1stÐ ¸  ÐCir.€2001),€commenting€on€the€"manifest€injustice"€created€byÐ d´  ÐPuerto€Rico's€clever€use€of€"sovereignty€to€shield€itself€from€theÐ `  Ðfair€consequences€of€its€actions").€€But€it€has€been€nearly€aÐ ¼  Ðcentury€and€a€half€since€òòBeersóó,€61€U.S.€at€529€held€that€becauseÐ h¸ Ðthe€waiver€of€such€immunity€is€entirely€within€the€sovereign'sÐ d Ðprerogative,€a€State€may€alter€the€conditions€of€waiver€and€applyÐ À Ðthose€changes€to€torpedo€even€pending€litigation.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àAs€the€record€reflects,€Plaintiffs'€February€11,€1998Ð h Ðmotion€for€a€preliminary€injunction€mentioned€the€recentÐ Ä Ðintroduction€of€the€bill€that€ultimately€ripened€into€Act€106,Ð pÀ  Ðwhich€dissolved€the€Office€and€transferred€its€assets€toÐ !l" ÐDepartment--to€the€Commonwealth€in€legal€effect.€€Because€theÐ ° Ðpreliminary€injunction€motion€was€still€under€advisement€at€theÐ \¬ Ðtime€Act€106€became€law,€we€are€not€confronted€with€the€knottierÐ X Ðproblem€that€would€have€been€posed€if€(say)€an€injunction€order€hadÐ ´  Ðbeen€entered€prohibiting€the€Office's€transfer€of€the€funds€atÐ ` ° Ðissue,€followed€by€the€enactment€of€a€statute€that€compelled€suchÐ  \  Ðtransfer€by€terminating€the€Office's€existence.€€Such€a€scenarioÐ ¸  Ðmight,€for€example,€have€placed€the€Supremacy€Clause€and€theÐ d´  Ðprinciple€of€sovereign€immunity€on€a€collision€course.€€But€asÐ `  Ðmatters€developed,€the€transfer€of€funds€to€Department€had€becomeÐ ¼  Ða€fait€accompli€by€the€time€the€Office€tendered€its€third€(andÐ h¸ Ðsuccessful)€motion€to€dismiss€the€district€court.€€Ð d Ðà ` àPlaintiffs'€attempt€to€argue€that€Puerto€Rico€waived€itsÐ À Ðimmunity€through€affirmative€litigation€conduct€fares€no€better.€Ð l¼ ÐIt€has€long€been€established€that€a€State's€conduct€in€a€federalÐ h Ðlawsuit€can€constitute€waiver:€€"[W]here€a€state€voluntarilyÐ Ä Ðbecomes€a€party€to€a€cause,€and€submits€its€rights€for€judicialÐ pÀ  Ðdetermination,€it€will€be€bound€thereby,€and€cannot€escape€theÐ !l" Ðresult€of€its€own€voluntary€act€by€invoking€the€prohibitions€of€theÐ È"$ Ð11th€Amendment"€(òòGunteróó€v.€òòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.R.óó,€200€U.S.€273,Ð t$Ä& Ð284€(1906);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòPorto€Ricoóó€v.€òòBonicio€Ramosóó,€232€U.S.€627Ð  &p!( Ð(1914),€finding€a€waiver€when€the€Commonwealth€petitioned€to€be€aÐ Ì'#* Ðclaimant€in€an€estate€proceeding€and€obtained€a€ruling€from€aÐ x)È$, Ðfederal€trial€court);€òòPaul€N.€Howard€Co.óó€v.€òòPuerto€Rico€AqueductÐ $+t&. ÐSewer€Auth.óó,€744€F.2d€880,€886€(1st€Cir.€1984),€finding€that€aÐ ° Ðgovernment€entity€assumed€arguendo€to€be€entitled€to€immunity€hadÐ \¬ Ðwaived€it€by€appearing€and€filing€a€counterclaim€and€third„partyÐ X Ðcomplaint€in€the€federal€lawsuit).€€Ð ´  Ðà ` àMost€recently€òòLapidesóó,€122€S.Ct€at€1643€reconfirmed€thatÐ ` ° Ða€State's€voluntary€invocation€of€federal€jurisdiction€amounts€toÐ  \  Ða€waiver€of€Eleventh€Amendment€immunity.€€òòLapidesóó,€òòidóó.€at€1644Ð ¸  Ðdistinguished€such€a€waiver€from€the€type€of€constructive€statutoryÐ d´  Ðwaiver€repudiated€by€òòCollege€Sav.€Bankóó,€explaining€that€it€"restsÐ `  Ðupon€the€Amendment's€presumed€recognition€of€the€judicial€need€toÐ ¼  Ðavoid€inconsistency,€anomaly,€and€unfairness,€and€not€upon€aÐ h¸ ÐState's€actual€preference€or€desire,€which€might,€after€all,€favorÐ d Ðselective€use€of€'immunity'€to€achieve€litigation€advantages."€€ButÐ À Ðas€with€statutory€waiver,€the€State's€litigation€conduct€must€beÐ l¼ Ðunambiguous€(òòidóó.,€explaining€that€the€"relevant€'clarity'€here€mustÐ h Ðfocus€on€the€litigation€act€the€State€takes€that€creates€theÐ Ä Ðwaiver").€€Thus€the€State's€actions€must€evince€a€clear€choice€toÐ pÀ  Ðsubmit€its€rights€for€adjudication€by€the€federal€courts€(òòseeóó,Ð !l" Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòLapidesóó,€òòidóó.€(by€removing€an€action€to€the€federal€court);Ð È"$ ÐòòGardneróó€v.€òòNew€Jerseyóó,€329€U.S.€565,€574€(1947)(by€filing€a€proofÐ t$Ä& Ðof€claim€in€a€bankruptcy€proceeding)).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àIn€this€instance€Puerto€Rico's€involvement€in€the€federalÐ Ì'#* Ðaction€does€not€constitute€waiver€by€litigation€conduct.€€NeitherÐ x)È$, Ðthe€Office€nor€Department€has€taken€any€action€in€this€lawsuit€thatÐ $+t&. Ðmay€be€fairly€described€as€voluntarily€submitting€theÐ ° ÐCommonwealth's€rights€for€adjudication€by€the€federal€court.€€AsÐ \¬ Ðfor€the€Office,€it€has€yet€to€answer€Plaintiffs'€complaint,€letÐ X Ðalone€take€steps€akin€to€filing€a€counterclaim€or€third„partyÐ ´  Ðcomplaint.€€Nor€is€the€automatic€substitution€of€Department€for€theÐ ` ° ÐOffice--unlike€an€election€to€remove€a€case€from€a€state€court€toÐ  \  Ða€federal€court--a€clear€invocation€of€federal€court€jurisdiction.€Ð ¸  ÐAlthough€the€Office's€motions€urged€that€either€Department€orÐ d´  ÐPuerto€Rico€was€the€real€party€in€interest,€that€was€coincidentÐ `  Ðwith€their€raising€the€shield€of€immunity.€€And€Department's€entryÐ ¼  Ðinto€the€case€as€the€Office's€successor,€which€was€employed€only€toÐ h¸ Ðadvance€that€same€immunity€contention,€also€cannot€be€labeled€as€aÐ d Ðvoluntary€submission.€€In€short,€anything€that€might€beÐ À Ðcharacterized€as€affirmative€litigation€conduct€goes€back€to€theÐ l¼ Ðstatute€itself.€€And€while€the€Commonwealth's€Act€106€chose€toÐ h Ðinterject€Department€into€all€pending€litigation€against€theÐ Ä ÐOffice,€it€has€already€been€said€that€the€statutory€language€doesÐ pÀ  Ðnot€unequivocally€consent€to€the€continuation€of€any€such€suits€inÐ !l" Ðfederal€court.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àIt€is€surely€troubling€that€Puerto€Rico's€actions€hereÐ t$Ä& Ðimplicate€the€concerns€of€inconsistency€and€unfairness€that€are€atÐ  &p!( Ðthe€heart€of€the€waiver„by„litigation„conduct€doctrine.€€But€we€doÐ Ì'#* Ðnot€read€òòLapidesóó€as€sanctioning€a€different€or€lesser€test€for€theÐ x)È$, Ðclarity€with€which€the€State€must€consent€to€federal€jurisdictionÐ $+t&. Ðin€the€context€of€waiver€by€litigation,€as€compared€with€waiver€byÐ ° Ðstatute.€€Instead€òòLapidesóó€redirects€our€focus€on€such€clarity€toÐ \¬ ÐPuerto€Rico's€litigation€conduct.€€And€once€again€that€conduct,€inÐ X Ðthis€instance,€is€solely€in€implementation€of€the€statute€itself.€Ð ´  ÐSo€any€finding€of€waiver€via€the€conduct€of€this€litigation,€in€theÐ ` ° Ðabsence€of€the€requisite€clear€language€in€Act€106€showing€PuertoÐ  \  ÐRico's€intent€to€waive€immunity€from€suit€in€federal€court,€wouldÐ ¸  Ðfly€in€the€face€of€the€prevailing€sovereign€immunity€jurisprudenceÐ d´  Ðon€statutory€waiver.€€Ð `  Ðà ` àOne€final€issue€remains€for€our€resolution:€Plaintiffs'Ð ¼  Ðcontention€that€Puerto€Rico€is€not€a€"State"€within€the€meaning€ofÐ h¸ Ðthe€Eleventh€Amendment.€€Even€though€Puerto€Rico€is€an€incorporatedÐ d Ðterritory€of€the€United€States,€its€government€has€always€beenÐ À Ðconsidered€a€sovereign€entity€entitled€to€immunity€from€suitÐ l¼ Ðwithout€consent€(òòsee€Porto€Ricoóó€v.€òòRosaly€y€Castilloóó,€227€U.S.€270,Ð h Ð273€(1913)).€€And€although€òòPuerto€Rico€Aqueduct€&€Sewer€Auth.óó€v.Ð Ä ÐòòMetcalf€&€Eddy,€Inc.óó,€506€U.S.€139,€141€n.€1€(1993)€reserved€rulingÐ pÀ  Ðon€whether€the€Eleventh€Amendment€applies€to€Puerto€Rico,€it€is€theÐ !l" Ðsettled€law€of€this€Circuit€that€Puerto€Rico€enjoys€the€sameÐ È"$ Ðimmunity€from€suit€that€a€State€has€under€the€Eleventh€AmendmentÐ t$Ä& Ð(òòseeóó€òòArecibo€Cmty.€Health€Careóó,€270€F.3d€at€21€n.3).€€Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àPlaintiffs€urge€that€òòAldenóó€v.€òòMaineóó,€527€U.S.€706€(1999)Ð Ì'#* Ðrequires€us€to€reconsider€that€conclusion.׃W×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòAldenóó€teaches€that€theÐ x)È$, ÐStates'€sovereign€immunity€from€suit€in€their€own€courts€isÐ ° Ðembodied€in€the€structure€and€history€of€the€Constitution,€notÐ \¬ Ðsimply€the€Eleventh€Amendment,€so€that€it€is€beyond€congressionalÐ X Ðpower€to€abrogate€through€Article€I€legislation.€€Plaintiffs€assertÐ ´  Ðthat€unlike€the€States'€sovereign€immunity,€which€òòAldenóógrounded€inÐ ` ° Ðthe€Constitution€as€well€as€the€Eleventh€Amendment,€Puerto€Rico'sÐ  \  Ðcommon„law€sovereign€immunity€is€a€creation€of€the€courts€and€mayÐ ¸  Ðtherefore€be€overcome€by€federal€statute€pursuant€to€Congress'Ð d´  Ðpower€to€regulate€the€territories€(U.S.€Const.€art.€IV,€ðð3,€cl.€2).€Ð `  ÐAccording€to€Plaintiffs,€Congress€abrogated€Puerto€Rico's€court„Ð ¼  Ðcreated€sovereign€immunity€when€it€granted€Plaintiffs€a€federalÐ h¸ Ðforum€for€their€Section€1983€claims.€Ð d Ðà ` àWe€need€not€reach€that€constitutional€question,€however,Ð À Ðbecause€Plaintiffs'€argument€falls€of€its€own€weight.€€€€Whether€orÐ l¼ Ðnot€Puerto€Rico's€long„held€sovereign€immunity€is€constitutional€orÐ h Ðcommon„law€in€nature,€it€has€not€been€abrogated€by€Congress€here.€Ð Ä ÐòòExamining€Bd.€of€Engineers,€Architects€&€Surveyorsóó€v.€òòFlores€deÐ pÀ  ÐOteroóó,€426€U.S.€572€(1976)€established€that€Congress€granted€theÐ !l" ÐUnited€States€District€Court€in€Puerto€Rico€federal€jurisdiction€toÐ È"$ Ðenforce€the€provisions€of€Section€1983€on€a€basis€equal€to€thatÐ t$Ä& Ðconferred€on€district€courts€in€the€States.€€But€the€grant€of€aÐ  &p!( Ðfederal€forum€does€not€alone€constitute€an€abrogation€of€sovereignÐ ° Ðimmunity,€even€if€it€is€merely€court„created.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àEven€on€the€assumption€that€Congress€acts€pursuant€to€aÐ X Ðvalid€exercise€of€power,€it€must€still€"unequivocally€express[€]Ð ´  Ðits€intent€to€abrogate"€a€State's€immunity€(òòSeminole€Tribe€of€Fla.óóÐ ` ° Ðv.€òòFloridaóó,€517€U.S.€44,€55€(1996)׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô#†X(ÁXXX(ÁÃ\#ÔÔ‡X(ÁXXX(ÁÔ;€òòQuernóó€v.€òòJordanóó,€440€U.S.€332,Ð  \  Ð343€(1979)),€and€Plaintiffs€can€point€to€no€such€evidence€ofÐ ¸  ÐCongress'€intent€here.€€òòQuernóó,€òòidóó.€at€345€concluded€that€SectionÐ d´  Ð1983,€although€enacted€pursuant€to€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€didÐ `  Ðnot€abrogate€the€immunity€of€the€States€because€there€wasÐ ¼  Ðinsufficient€evidence€of€Congress'€desire€to€make€States€liableÐ h¸ Ðunder€that€statute.€€And€òòExamining€Boardóó,€426€U.S.€at€581„98Ð d Ðcarefully€traced€the€history€of€Section€1983€and€its€accompanyingÐ À Ðstatutory€grant€of€federal€jurisdiction€as€they€applied€to€PuertoÐ l¼ ÐRico€and€found€no€indication€that€Congress€intended€to€treat€PuertoÐ h ÐRico€differently€from€the€States€(òòcfóó.€òòJusino€Mercadoóó,€214€F.3d€atÐ Ä Ð44,€holding€that€Congress€in€drafting€the€Fair€Labor€Standards€ActÐ pÀ  Ðdid€not€intend€to€"intrude€more€profoundly€on€Puerto€Rico'sÐ !l" Ðsovereignty€than€on€that€of€the€states").€€Ð È"$ Ðà ` àWithout€speculating€on€the€outer€limits€of€Congress'Ð t$Ä& Ðconstitutional€power€to€regulate€the€territories,€we€conclude€thatÐ  &p!( ÐPuerto€Rico's€immunity€has€not€been€overcome€by€federal€statute€inÐ ° Ðthis€case.€€Thus€nothing€in€òòAldenóó€has€any€bearing€on€our€analysisÐ \¬ Ðor€conclusion€here.Ð X ÐÔ#†X(ÁXXX(ÁÊ—#Ôà ` àIn€reviewing€what€has€occurred€in€this€case€and€theÐ ´  Ðconclusion€we€have€perforce€reached,€we€are€constrained€to€say€thatÐ ` ° Ðthe€actions€of€the€Puerto€Rico€executive€agencies€and€legislatureÐ  \  Ðhere€have€continued€a€distressing€pattern€of€activity€in€seeking€toÐ ¸  Ðavoid€millions€of€dollars€of€established€or€potential€liability--aÐ d´  Ðpattern€that€this€Court€has€twice€labeled€as€"despicable"€inÐ `  Ðearlier€cases:€€òòFutura€Dev.óó,€144€F.3d€at€13€and€òòU.S.I.€Props.óó,€230Ð ¼  ÐF.3d€at€501.€€That€conduct€epitomizes€the€notion€that€was€at€theÐ h¸ Ðoriginal€core€of€sovereign€immunity:€€The€King€can€do€no€wrong.€Ð d ÐAnd€in€extending€that€notion€to€our€democratic€form€of€government,Ð À Ðthe€courts€do€not€seem€to€subscribe€to€the€pre„Revolutionary„WarÐ l¼ Ðview€expressed€in€1776€in€Thomas€Paine's€òòCommon€Senseóó:Ð h ÐÓÓà8 ` à[ò òó óS]o€far€as€we€approve€a€monarchy...in€AmericaÐ Ä Ðthe€law€is€king.€€For€as€in€absoluteÐ šê Ðgovernments€the€king€is€law,€so€in€freeÐ pÀ  Ðcountries€the€law€ought€to€be€king;€and€thereÐ F –! Ðought€to€be€no€other.Ð!l"` x` x ÐÌÓ* X§X°,X°` ¨ ƒX*ÓÓÓà  àà ` àUnder€the€caselaw€the€federal€courts€cannot€serve€asÐ È"$ Ð"king"€to€right€any€wrongs€committed€by€the€Puerto€Rico€governmentÐ t$Ä& Ðin€its€sovereign€capacity.€€As€in€òòU.S.I.€Props.óó,€230€F.3d€at€501,Ð  &p!( Ðwe€must€leave€it€to€the€courts€of€the€Commonwealth€to€correct€anyÐ Ì'#* Ðinjustice.Ð x)È$, ÐòòÓ  ÓÐ  $+t&. ÐConclusionóóÐ ° ÐÓH¥Óà  àà ` àWe€AFFIRM€the€ruling€of€the€district€court€dismissingÐ \¬ ÐPlaintiffs'€suit€as€barred€by€Puerto€Rico's€immunity€from€suit€inÐ X Ðthe€federal€courts.