Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/303

 546US1

92

Unit: $U10

[09-04-08 12:14:58] PAGES PGT: OPIN

LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. v. ROCHE Opinion of the Court

(1969) (assignment for collection only, motivated by desire to make diversity jurisdiction available, falls within the “very core” of § 1359); Little v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596, 600–607 (1886) (where land was purportedly sold to out-of-state farmer but no money or deed changed hands, quiet title action could not be maintained based on farmer’s diverse citizenship), nor to defeat it, see Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U. S. 146, 152 (1914) (diverse defendants, upon showing that join­ der of nondiverse party was “without right and made in bad faith,” may successfully remove the action to federal court). Nor are the Roches aided by cases in which actions against a state agency have been regarded as suits against the State itself. See, e. g., State Highway Comm’n of Wyo. v. Utah Constr. Co., 278 U. S. 194, 199–200 (1929) (“[State] Commis­ sion was but the arm or alter ego of the State with no funds or ability to respond in damages.”). Decisions of this genre are bottomed on this Court’s recognition of a State’s asserted Eleventh Amendment right not to be haled into federal court. See, e. g., Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Caro­ lina Ports Authority, 535 U. S. 743, 769 (2002).7 They are not pertinent to suits between private parties. Unlike cases in which a party was named to satisfy state pleading rules, e. g., McNutt ex rel. Leggett, Smith, & Law­ rence v. Bland, 2 How. 9, 14 (1844), or was joined only as designated performer of a ministerial act, e. g., Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 589 (1880), or otherwise had no con­ trol of, impact on, or stake in the controversy, e. g., Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467, 469–470 (1856), Lincoln has a vital inter­ 7

Similarly inapposite are cases invoking our original jurisdiction in which we have inquired into the capacity in which a sovereign party ap­ pears. See, e. g., Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U. S. 387, 395– 396 (1938) (original jurisdiction improper where State was acting as trustee for its citizens); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Kenyon, 204 U. S. 349, 358 (1907) (original jurisdiction upheld where United States was “a real and not a mere nominal plaintiff ”).