The Washington Court of Appeals recently decided Foxworthy v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians, a dram shop tort claim against a tribal business enterprise. The Court held that the Puyallup tribe hadn’t waived its immunity in state court.
The opinion is here.
The plaintiff’s brief is here: Foxworthy Opening Brief
The tribe’s response is here: Puyallup Response Brief
The plaintiff’s reply is here: Foxworthy Reply Brief
Last December, the federal court denied the Cherokee Nation’s motion to dismiss Vann v. Kempthorne. The Nation had argued that it was a necessary and indispensable party under FRCP 19. And, because it hadn’t waived its immunity, the Nation argued that the federal case must be dismissed. The United States argued that the case should be dismissed under the tribal court exhaustion doctrine. The court disagreed.
The Denver City and County Court thought so. In a case where the Colorado AG asked a Colorado trial court to issue subpoenas to internet money lenders owned by the Miami Nation of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. The tribal enterprises appeared for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, raising tribal sovereign immunity as a bar to the subpoenas. The trial court denied the order. The case is now pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals.
If the characterization of this case on page 13 of this prepared statement before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Domestic Reform is even half accurate (the whole “rent-a-tribe” thing), then this is an ugly case. It is an ugly case regardless.
The Colorado Court of Appeals briefs are here:
Turtle Talk 