Interesting case to watch in the California Court of Appeal. The case involves intertribal lending.

Here is the opening brief: YAN Opening Brief.

The YAN statement of the case:

May an Indian tribe avoid the jurisdiction of California courts, even after its chairperson (i) was authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement with a lender, (ii) executed an agreement with the lender containing a clear waiver of sovereign immunity, and (iii) warranted that the tribe had approved the agreement? The trial court below answered in the affirmative, dismissing a lawsuit for breach of a loan agreement, brought by plaintiff and appellant the Yavapai-Apache Nation (the “YAN”) against the defaulting borrower, defendant and respondent the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (the “Iipay”).

The YAN asks this Court to correct this error. The law of California and of the United States has, for over a century, upheld the validity of acts of foreign officials and provided a presumption that such acts are valid; the burden of proof is on the party challenging the validity of such acts to show why they are not effective. This presumption, which applies equally to officials of Indian tribes, was not rebutted in this case. The Iipay authorized its chairperson to make an agreement with its lender (the rights to which the YAN succeeded), and all admissible evidence shows that the agreement was executed and approved by the Iipay. The Iipay breached the agreement. The Iipay should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of an agreement until it defaults, and then avoid the consequences of its default by selectively disavowing the part of the agreement – the waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to jurisdiction in California – it finds inconvenient.