Here is the unpublished opinion in Pereyma v. Donato:
Briefs are here.
The court has ordered Chehalis to show cause as to this question (our earlier post with the briefings on the Tribe’s motion for summary judgment is here):
Plaintiffs have alleged a new claim in their complaint that Defendants’ failure to follow Revenue’s opinion is a violation of both state and federal law. See supra. The original complaint, however, involved claims based only on issues of federal law. See Dkt. 1. Thus, before reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause, if any they have, why this Court should exert jurisdiction over this new claim. Although Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ failure to follow Revenue’s decision is also a violation of “federal preemption law,” there has been no showing that a county assessor violates federal preemption law solely by failing to follow a state agency’s opinion as to the imposition of a tax. In other words, if Revenue had opined that the tax was not preempted and the assessor refused to impose the tax, it is questionable whether the assessor’s action in conflict with Revenue’s opinion would raise a federal question invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the new claim seems to be purely a matter of state law regarding the authority of the state agency, Revenue, over the Thurston County Assessor.
Plaintiffs bear the burden to show why the Court should assert jurisdiction over this state law claim and why the Court (1) should not abstain from this matter, (2) is not divested from jurisdiction over this matter, or (3) should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the new claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
Here is the order — DCT Order to Show Cause re State Law Claims
Chehalis has filed a motion for summary judgment against Thurston County on the question of whether the county may tax the non-Indian-owned portion of a Great Wolf Lodge located on tribal trust lands. The Western District of Washington previously denied the Tribe’s motion for a preliminary injunction (materials here). Here is the news coverage of the instant motion (Indianz and local).
And here are the briefs for the summary judgment motion: