on a state-law claim in its own courts, it waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing that claim to federal court. As the WMATA signatories have not waived immunity from attorney's liens in their own courts, the narrow holding of Lapides does not apply to this case. Even if it did, it would not be controlling because WMATA's immunity does not arise solely from the Eleventh Amendment. In any event, Watters has never argued that WMATA waived its immunity (Eleventh Amendment or otherwise) by removing this case to federal court. Unlike the defense of sovereign immunity, which is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time, the claim that WMATA waived its immunity is an argument that must be raised in a timely fashion. Cf. Whelan v. Abell, 48 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Belton, 20 F.3d at 1202 (holding that a party
holding that appellant waived its claim that its opponent had waived the protections of the noerrpennington doctrine by failing to assert the opponents waiver holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal holding that the appellant waived this argument