been delegated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer the complaints of private persons.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 748, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) (quotations omitted). This immunity is likewise afforded to a State’s agencies, which are considered to be arms of the State. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993). The filing of a suit against a State generally triggers Eleventh Amendment immunity. In this district, an adversary proceeding, which summons the State to appear in federal court in order to avoid a default judgment, is considered to be a suit for the purposes of sovereign immunity. See University of Virginia v. Robertson, 243 B.R. 657, 665 (W.D.Va.2000) (<HOLDING>). Not all proceedings in a federal bankruptcy
holding that while an original bankruptcy proceeding where the state is not named as a defendant is not a suit an adversary proceeding directly against the state would be holding debtors complaint to determine dischargeability of tax debt barred by eleventh amendment holding that the university of californias board of regents is shielded from suit under the eleventh amendment holding that a debtors adversary proceeding against the university of virginia to determine the dischargeability of a debt is a suit for eleventh amendment purposes holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment