that creates the waiver.” Lapides, 535 U.S. at 620, 122 S.Ct. 1640 (emphasis added). The general principle is that, “where a State voluntarily becomes a party to a cause and submits its rights for judicial determination, it will be bound thereby and cannot escape the result of its own voluntary act by invoking the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment.” Id. at 619, 122 S.Ct. 1640 (quoting Gunter v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 200 U.S. 273, 284, 26 S.Ct. 252, 50 L.Ed. 477 (1906)). The rationale is the Eleventh Amendment’s “presumed recognition of judicial need to avoid inconsistency, anomaly, and unfairness.” Id. at 620, 122 S.Ct. 1640. Consequently, even where a state is at first involuntarily before a court, the Eleventh Amendment is not a license to “achieve litigation advantages.” Id. (<HOLDING>); Ku v. Tennessee, 322 F.3d 431, 434 (6th
holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity