tribal court exhaustion doctrine – Page 10

Cedarville Rancheria Prevails in Tribal Exhaustion Matter

February 16, 2017February 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians (E.D. Cal.):

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Duanna Knighton, the former Tribal Administrator for defendant Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians (“the Tribe”), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Tribe, Cedarville Rancheria Tribal Court (“Tribal Court”), and Tribal Court Judge Patricia R. Lenzi (“Tribal Judge Lenzi”) (collectively “defendants”) to avoid Tribal Court jurisdiction over claims that she defrauded the Tribe and breached her fiduciary duties to it. Defendants move to dismiss Knighton’s complaint because the Tribal Court has jurisdiction. I agree that it has both regulatory and adjudicative authority over its former employee under the facts alleged; accordingly, it has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion in Claims involving Interpretation of Navajo Insurance Law

February 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Progressive Advanced Insurance Company v. Worker (D. Ariz.):

An excerpt:

The Court determines that the tribal courts of the Navajo Nation have a colorable or plausible claim to jurisdiction over this matter. See Elliott, 566 F.3d at 848. Like the insurer in Stump, Progressive issued an insurance policy that listed a tribal member as a named insured and covered vehicles that were kept on tribal lands. Unlike the insurer in Stump, however, Progressive never mailed anything to an address on tribal lands. To the extent that factor is dispositive, it may be that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction. But this is a question that must be answered first by the tribal courts of the Navajo Nation. See LaPlante, 480 U.S. at 16 (explaining that the tribal court should have “‘the first opportunity to evaluate the factual and legal bases for the challenge’ to its jurisdiction”). An analysis of the Todecheene decision does not change this conclusion. In that case, the Ninth Circuit ultimately determined that it was not clear that the tribal courts plainly lacked jurisdiction. Todecheene, 488 F.3d at 1216. This Court reaches the same conclusion here.