Federal Court Dismisses Gustafson v. Poitra Dispute (Again)

Here are the materials in Gustafson v. Poitra (D. N.D.):

19 Motion to Dismiss

23 Response

34 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Court notes the equities clearly favor the Gustafsons, and the Court is sympathetic to the jurisdictional dilemma they find themselves in. The juvenile behavior and attitude of the Poitras that triggered the need for the issuance of the TRO in October 2012 is difficult for any reasonable person to understand. However, the plaintiffs cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a vehicle to resolve a multitude of long-standing disputes which neither raise a federal question nor bear any relationship to a lawsuit over which the Court would have jurisdiction.

We have posted on the multiple suits in this long-running dispute here, here, and here.

North Dakota Supreme Court Decides On-Reservation Jurisdiction Case

Here is the opinion in Gustafson v. Poitra.

The court’s syllabus:

The appellate court may consider whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and may consider the issue sua sponte.

A state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction where a non-Indian claimant initiates an action against Indian defendants over a lease of fee land owned by the Indian defendants within the exterior boundaries of the reservation.

And links to the appellant and appellee briefs.