A badly divided Louisiana Supreme Court held that state courts need not apply the tribal court exhaustion doctrine in Mayer and Assoc. v. Coushatta Tribe (opinion).
tribal court exhaustion doctrine
Mullally v. Havasu Landing Casino — FLMA Claim Against Tribal Casino
The district court for the Central District of California dismissed the FMLA claim on grounds of sovereign immunity. Other claims, including defamation, were dismissed without prejudice on the tribal court exhaustion doctrine. And, under tribal law, the casino immunity was waived.
havasu-landing-motion-to-dismiss
Stone v. Blackhawk — Tribal Court Exhaustion at Crow
Here is a simple tribal court exhaustion case arising out of a property dispute at Crow.
magistrate-report and recommendation
Tribal Court Exhaustion Case Involving the Colorado River Indian Tribe
The case is Water Wheel Camp v. Larance, out of the federal district court for the District of Arizona. The DCT denied a motion for a TRO from the non-Indian-owned complainant, who wanted to avoid continuing tribal court litigation over an attempt by CRIT to evict them.
Water Wheel Complaint [Includes two tribal court opinions as exhibits]
Motion for TRO [plus exhibits]
Tribal appellate court decision:
Farmers Union Oil v. Guggolz — Plains Commerce Bank Redux
This is a case before the same trial judge as in Plains Commerce Bank in the D.S.D. This one is a slip and fall, but Farmers Union Oil the defendant in tribal court at Standing Rock. The judge followed Plains Commerce Bank and many other similar decisions in requiring the exhaustion of tribal court remedies, but then he took an unfortunate potshot at the CA8 opinion in Plains Commerce Bank:
I have previously cited in this order and opinion the case of Plains Commerce. I was the trial judge in that case. The case was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As I read the appellate opinion, I was struck by the fact that such opinion would clearly and substantially broaden the jurisdiction of tribal courts in the Eighth Circuit. It would allow tribal courts to decide what common law principles were to be applied in tribal courts. This would be a significant expansion of tribal court jurisdiction in civil cases. In the past few days, I have noted that the United States Supreme Court has granted the petition of Plains Commerce for a writ of certiorari. Apparently, we will have further guidance from the Supreme Court.
Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal Court (CA9)
This is a tribal court exhaustion case out of the Ninth Circuit (with Judge Canby sitting on the panel):
Burlington Northern v. Vaughn (CA9) Materials
BNSF v. Vaughn involves the Hualapai tribe’s attempt to impose taxes on BNSF railroad. BNSF brought an Ex parte Young action against two tribal officials: the chairman and the tax collector, seeking an injunction. The tribe argued that the railroad was required to exhaust its tribal remedies and that the tribe and its officials hadn’t waived tribal immunity. The district court disagreed. Here, the Ninth Circuit held that the tribe could bring an interlocutory appeal of the rejection of the immunity defense, but held that the tax collector was not immune from suit and remanded for further proceedings.
Here are the materials:
Philip Morris v. King Mountain — Tribal Court Exhaustion in 9th Circuit
This case, involving the tribal court exhaustion doctrine, was argued before the Ninth Circuit in May 2007 before Brunetti, McKeown, and William Fletcher. A parallel case is ongoing in the Yakama tribal court.
Here are the materials:
Tribal Court Case Studies: Grand Ronde Case
An interesting case (to me anyway) that has been winding its way through state, tribal, and now federal courts — a case involving an investment contract between the Grand Ronde Confederated Tribes and Strategic Wealth Management (and now its insurance company). In short, the deal between the two went bad and the parties ended up in state court, then before an arbitrator. The arbitrator ruled against the tribe, and awarded millions in attorney fees to SWM (but nothing else). The tribe refused to pay, arguing that it had not waived its immunity in relation to attorney fees, and SWM went to tribal court to enforce the arbitration award of attorney fees. The tribal court affirmed the tribe’s claim of immunity and now the case is in federal district court on a Montana 1 theory (huh?). Anyway, I wrote about this case as it went through the tribal court recently (here). And I personally know the two principals of SWM from my work at Pascua Yaqui a thousand years ago.
This may look like a tribe hiding behind sovereign immunity, but keep in mind that the Sizemore brothers (the SWM principals) prided themselves on being “experts” on federal Indian law (despite not being lawyers) and wrote the contract at issue. Moreover, the amount of atty fees awarded by the arbitrator was extraordinary (in the millions).
Contract with Strategic Wealth Management
Tribal Court of Appeals Opinion
Federal District Court Materials:
Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment
Village of Pender v. Parker — tribal court exhaustion case
Recently, a federal judge in Nebraska stayed a federal claim that the Omaha tribe has no authority to require on-reservation, non-Indian liquor vendors to obtain a tribal license to sell liquor.
The judge noted that this appears to be a question of first impression (“While the briefing has been excellent, neither side has given me a case that is squarely on point regarding whether exhaustion is required in these circumstances. As a result, I must read the ‘tea leaves.'”), but correctly stayed the case until the tribal court had a chance to opine on the jurisdiction questions.
The 2nd amended complaint is here: Complaint
The tribal motion to dismiss is here: Motion to Dismiss
The opposition is here: Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
The reply is here: Reply Brief
The court’s stay order and opinion is here: DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Turtle Talk 