requirement of “jurisdiction over the state” as factors in analyzing whether a proceeding constituted a “suit” under the Eleventh Amendment), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 936, 145 L.Ed.2d 815 (2000); cf. Collins, 173 F.3d at 929 (“The Commonwealth ... was not named as a defendant, was not served with process, and was not compelled to appear in bankruptcy court.”). The Mitchells further argue that because they did not request affirmative monetary relief, there is no suit. While courts generally construe “action leading to an order forcing a payment to citizens [as] the quintessential ‘suit’ under the Eleventh Amendment,” In re NVR Homes, 189 F.3d at 453, this factor is not dispositive. See id.; Morrell v. Franchise Tax Bd. (In re Morrell), 218 B.R. 87, 89-90 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a decision in favor of the
recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment holding debtors complaint to determine dischargeability of tax debt barred by 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 recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment