Plaintiff sues, asserting federal § 1983 claims and a state whistleblower claim. Texas' whistleblower statute waives city's immunity from suit in state court, but not federal court. I filed a 12(b)(1) motion asserting there is no subject-matter jurisdiction because there has been no legislative waiver or congressional abrogation of city's immunity from suit in federal court. I asked for, and received, a stay on discovery related to the whistleblower claim (discovery on the federal claim is stayed pending a decision on a separate 12(b)(6) motion). There are four cases (one from the Fifth Circuit and one each from the Southern, Western and Northern districts) that are consistent with my argument. There is no contrary case law. If I was Plaintiff I would argue Congress, in enacting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), intended to abrogate a city's immunity from suit in federal court. It appears this is a question of first impression. There are cases holding that nothing in § 1367(a) shows a congressional intent to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity. Even though a state's immunity from suit in federal court comes from the common-law and the Eleventh Amendment, if there is no congressional intent to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity there can be no congressional intent to abrogate a city's governmental immunity. Any thoughts on this issue? Thanks. Michael Meyer Assistant City Attorney City of Corpus Christi 361.826.3362 MichaelM4@cctexas.com<mailto:MichaelM4@cctexas.com>