Two Shields v. Wilkinson

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Two Shields v. Wilkinson

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion:

Two Shields Opinion

An excerpt:

Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson are Indians with interests in land allotted to them by the United States under the Dawes Act of 1887. Such land is held in trust by the government, but may be leased by allottees. Two Shields and Defender Wilson leased oil and gas mining rights on their allotments to appellee companies and affiliated individuals who won a sealed bid auction conducted by the Board of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2007. Subsequent to the auction, appellants agreed to terms with the winning bidders, the BIA approved the leases, and appellees sold them for a large profit. Appellants later filed this putative class action in the District of North Dakota, claiming that the United States had breached its fiduciary duty by approving the leases for the oil and gas mining rights, and that the defendant bidders aided, abetted, and induced the United States to breach that duty. The district court concluded that the United States was a required party which could not be joined, but without which the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience, and dismissed the case. Appellants challenge that dismissal. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Briefs here.

Opening Eighth Circuit Brief in Two Shields v. Wilkinson

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

opening brief of plaintiffs-appellants

addendum to brief of plaintiffs-appellants

The MSU ILPC filed an amicus brief in this matter as well:

Two Shields ILPC Amicus Final

Lower court order here:

108 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Here are the opening lines of the appellants’ brief:

Appellees engineered and executed a scheme to swindle hundreds of millions of dollars in oil-and-gas lease revenue from Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson and the class of Native Americans they propose to represent. Yet the District Court concluded that Appellants could not, as a matter of law, pursue their North Dakota common-law claims against Appellees simply because Appellees involved the United States in their swindle. Based on that fact alone, the District Court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 required dismissal of Appellants’ entire case.

There is a parallel suit against the United States in the CFC.