liability of the defen-dani/third-party plaintiff being reduced by a corresponding percentage. See Alaska R. Civ. P. 14(c) (providing that “[j]udgment may be entered against a third-party defendant in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the third-party defendant’s respective percentage of fault”). C. Analysis of the State’s Arguments. The State first argues that section 09.17.080 (1996) creates no legal duty between a defendant/third-party plaintiff and a third-party defendant. The State then reasons that the claim by the United States for equitable apportionment is, in essence, nothing more than a claim asserted on behalf of a private-citizen plaintiff, who is barred from asserting a claim directly. (2d Cir.1988) (same); Parks v. United States, 784 F.2d 20, 23-25 (1st Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Despite the distinction that Alaska law draws
holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state holding that the eleventh amendment does not prohibit the united states from prosecuting a claim of contribution