Turtle Talk

Strange little case, unpublished in the Arizona Reporter, and captioned MM&A Prods., LLC v. Tang.

The court previously held that the underlying contract claim against the Yavapai-Apache Nation should be dismissed. But the plaintiffs keep coming:

P1 In this special action, petitioner MM&A Productions, LLC (MM&A) challenges respondent Judge Paul E. Tang’s denial of its request to sign a proposed order memorializing the denial, in unsigned minute entry orders, of MM&A’s motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., and its motion for reconsideration. We accept jurisdiction and grant relief.

P2 The procedural history of this matter is explained in more detail in this court’s memorandum decision dismissing MM&A’s appeal. MM&A brought an action against the Yavapai-Apache Nation’s Cliff Castle Casino (the Tribe) alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and fraud. The respondent judge granted the Tribe’s motion to dismiss, concluding the Tribe had not waived its sovereign immunity. MM&A did not appeal that judgment timely, ultimately requesting that the respondent grant it relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P., to modify the judgment’s effective date to permit MM&A to file a timely notice of appeal. In unsigned minute entry orders, the respondent denied the motion and MM&A’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. In 2009, MM&A appealed the judgment and several other orders entered after judgment, including the respondent’s denial of MM&A’s Rule 60(c) motion and motion for reconsideration. We stayed the appeal to provide MM&A the opportunity to obtain signed, appealable orders. We dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, however, when MM&A failed to do so and instead again sought substantive relief.

P3 MM&A then lodged with the respondent judge a “form of order” denying MM&A’s Rule 60(c) motion and its motion for reconsideration and requested the court sign it in order to “convert[]” the respondent’s previous minute entry orders “into appealable orders.” Concluding MM&A “had its opportunity two years ago to obtain a signed order when directed to do so, and it failed to do so,” the respondent declined to sign the proposed order. MM&A now seeks special action relief and requests that we order the respondent to sign the proposed order.

P4 In its special action petition, MM&A named the Tribe as the real party in interest. The Tribe has filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss asserting that, because the Tribe has sovereign immunity, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over it and therefore must dismiss MM&A’s special action. See White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe v. Shelley, 107 Ariz. 4, 5, 480 P.2d 654, 655 (1971) (“[A]n Indian tribe is a dependent sovereign not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state absent its consent or the consent of Congress.”). We need not decide, however, whether the Tribe’s sovereign immunity prevents it from being joined as a party to this special action because, as we explain, the Tribe’s refusal to be joined does not abrogate our authority to accept jurisdiction of this special action and grant relief.

The court held that the Tribe did not need to be a party to the special action.