recover the feé from Lerner under the bankruptcy doctrine of recoupment. As a threshold matter, the Court disagrees with B & B’s position because, even if the SSA could later recoup the fee from Lerner, holding the SSA directly liable for money damages would still violate the SSA’s sovereign immunity. See Handel, 570 F.3d at 145 n. 4; cf. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 431, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997) (in applying state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, holding that “it is the entity’s potential legal liability, rather than its ability or inability to require a third party to reimburse it, or to discharge the liability in the first instance, that is relevant”); Walker v. City of Waterbury, 253 Fed.Appx. 58, 61 (2d Cir.2007) (summary order) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.,
holding that the lanham act did not waive states sovereign immunity holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity holding that a states entitlement to indemnification from a third party does not vitiate the states sovereign immunity against a money judgment holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states