Here is the opinion: Canyon National Bank v Timbisha Shoshone Tribe

An excerpt:

Thus, the Court concludes that sovereign immunity bars it from exercising jurisdiction over the Tribe. Nevertheless, the Beaman Faction would have the Court find that it could exercise jurisdiction over the Kennedy Faction to resolve this case. The Kennedy Faction contends that its members are protected by sovereign immunity. The Court need not resolve this issue. Because it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the Tribe, it cannot hear the interpleader action: to hear such an action all potential stakeholders must be parties. California Code of Civil Procedure section 386(b) provides “Any person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more person which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.” The statute does not permit an action against only some of the claimants for an obvious reason: the purpose of the statute is to permit the stakeholder to require all of the competing claimants to litigate their claims. Without all of the competing claimants being joined in the litigation, a court could not determine which was entitled to the funds. Obviously, a court cannot adjudicate the rights of parties who are not before it. Holloway v. Thiele (1953) 116 Cal. App. 2d 68, 74. Here, without the Tribe being a litigant, the Court does not have all of the potential claimants before it-indeed, it is lacking the most important litigant, the one in whose name the other parties claim to have the authority to act-and thus cannot adjudicate the competing claims.