Here is the link to the opinion. The prior opinion is posted here.
H/T Indianz.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
N.M. SCT to Consider State-Law Dram Shop Actions and Tribal Immunity under N.M. Indian Gaming Compacts
The New Mexico Court of Appeals last May decided Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. (opinion link here), holding in part that the New Mexico Indian gaming compact signed by the Pueblo of Santa Ana waived tribal immunity in state court to state-law dram shop actions. The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed to review this case.
As readers will know, we’ve been following multiple state cases involving tribal immunity from state law dram shop actions (e.g., cases involving the Mohegans, and tribes in Washington and Oklahoma; broader discussion here).
As Pechanga reported, one personal injury firm in ABQ suggests that Mendoza “significantly curtailed tribal immunity.” That seems to be an exaggeration — at least when it comes to the common law of tribal immunity — in that it appears likely that the New Mexico compacts include a sufficiently broad waiver. But that remains to be seen as well.
New Mexico Appellate Court Dismisses Worker’s Comp Claim against Inn of the Mountain Gods
New Mexico Appellate Court Finds Tribal Waiver of Immunity in Gaming Compact
Here is the unpublished decision in Bowen v. Mescalero Apache Tribe.
An excerpt:
Plaintiff has properly pled the conjunctive elements of waiver required by the Compact. Consequently, Defendant’s sovereign immunity from suit has been waived, and the district court improperly granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Not sure if this means immunity is waived simply by pleading certain jurisdictional facts, or if the tribe’s immunity is reinstated assuming those jurisdictional facts are later disproven. Interesting conundrum.
News Coverage of Armijo v. Laguna Pueblo
An excerpt from the ABQ Journal article:
A land dispute between Laguna Pueblo and a rancher prompted the New Mexico Court of Appeals to rule that tribal sovereignty shields tribes and pueblos from lawsuits involving lands they own outside their reservations.
The dispute centers on a 640-acre property in the Mount Taylor foothills. Cibola County rancher Robert Armijo contends he bought the property in 1994 from the Cebolleta Land Grant and has a warranty deed to prove it.
The Pueblo of Laguna claims the parcel is part of 8,300 acres the pueblo purchased in 2008 from Silver Dollar Ranch LLC.
In a Dec. 6 opinion, the Appeals Court found a district court judge lacked jurisdiction to decide who owns the property because the pueblo enjoys immunity from lawsuits, even if the land is outside its boundaries.
A legal concept called tribal sovereign immunity has long protected tribes and pueblos from lawsuits on tribal lands, which are held in trust by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
An attorney representing Armijo said the Court of Appeals ruling extends tribal sovereign immunity to “fee lands” purchased on the open market by tribes and pueblos but not held in trust.
“The decision is problematic,” Belen attorney Tibo Chavez said. “Sovereign immunity elevates the tribes above constitutionally protected property rights.”
The ruling may forestall any type of legal claim related to off-reservation properties owned by tribes and pueblos, he said.
“What if someone was injured on this land?” Chavez said. “Are there applications of negligence law that would apply?”
Albuquerque attorney Daniel Rey-Bear, who represents Pueblo of Laguna, declined to comment on the case.
New Mexico Court of Appeals Decision on State Worker’s Comp Jurisdiction in Indian Country
Here is the opinion in Antonio v. Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort.
An excerpt:
Michael Antonio (Worker) appeals from an order of dismissal entered by the Workers’ Compensation Administration (WCA) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Worker alleges that (1) the WCA erred in determining that Worker’s injury occurred on the Mescalero Apache Tribe reservation (Tribe) and that the Tribe was not conducting business within the State of New Mexico; and (2) the WCA had jurisdiction by default because the Tribe did not have a workers’ compensation program in effect at the time of Worker’s injury, and the compensation that was provided to Worker was not as good as the compensation required by the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act. We conclude that the WCA did not have jurisdiction over the Tribe because the Tribe did not expressly waive sovereign immunity and, therefore, the WCA’s order reached the right result for the wrong reasons. See Cordova v. World Fin. Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 18, 146 N.M. 256,208 P.3d 901 (noting that we may affirm on grounds not relied upon if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below). Weaffirm.
N.M. Appellate Court Affirms Immunity of Tribal Official Acting Off-Reservation
Here is the unpublished opinion in Reed v. Gutierrez.
An excerpt:
In this case, we determine whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity shields Defendant Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico (the Pueblo) and its employee, Defendant Robert Gutierrez, from liability for an off-reservation tort. We hold pursuant to Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S.7 751 (1998), that they are immune from the claims of Plaintiffs Peggy and Timothy Reed and affirm the district court.
New Mexico Court of Appeals Affirms Tribal Immunity from Suit re: Land
Here is that court’s opinion in Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna. An excerpt:
The Pueblo of Laguna (the Pueblo) appeals the order of the district court denying the Pueblo’s motion to dismiss the cross-claims of Appellee Robert Armijo (Armijo) filed in a quiet title suit. Our resolution of this appeal requires us to consider the issue of tribal sovereign immunity as it relates to non-tribal land purchased by the Pueblo and whether the Pueblo is an indispensable party. We hold that the Pueblo is immune from suit under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and, further, that the Pueblo is an indispensable party who cannot be joined. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court and remand for dismissal of Armijo’s cross-claims.
Interestingly, this case was decided Oct. 6, right before the Supreme Court granted cert in Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation.
Hoffman v. Sandia Resort and Casino — Immunity from Jackpot Claims
Here is the opinion in January from the New Mexico Court of Appeals in Hoffman v. Sandia Resort and Casino (apparently the New Mexico Supreme Court denied review just recently). The claim involved a false jackpot, and the plaintiff had tribal remedies.
N.M. Court of Appeals Decision in Indian Country Crimes Case
Here is the court’s decision in State v. Cruz from last October (and it appears the New Mexico Supreme Court will hear this one), rejecting t a non-Indian’s claim that her crimes allegedly occurred on Indian lands.
An excerpt:
Defendant contends that the district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over her because the alleged crimes were committed against Indians in Indian country. It is undisputed that Defendant is not a member of an Indian tribe; however, she notes that Mulvaney delivered the checks to the laborers/payees on Indian land and argues that, because the crimes occurred on Indian land, prosecution is within the jurisdiction of the tribal court. See generally Dick, 1999 NMCA 62, P 7 (recognizing the general principle that a state has no jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in “Indian country” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We disagree because the evidence does not establish that all of the elements of the crime took place on Indian land. See State v. Clark, 2000 NMCA 52, PP 5-7, 129 N.M. 194, 3 P.3d 689 (holding that the district court had jurisdiction to try a Native American defendant for the crimes of larceny and conspiracy when the crimes were initiated within Indian country but continued outside the boundaries of Indian country into New Mexico). Milo’s is located in McKinley County. In addition, the checks were initially signed by Defendant in Albuquerque and delivered to Mulvaney at some point approximately halfway between Albuquerque and the construction site on the Zuni Indian Reservation. This evidence shows that at least some of the elements of the crimes took [**6] place in either Bernalillo County or McKinley County in locations that were not in Indian country. Therefore, New Mexico had jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant for these crimes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.