Automotive United Trades Organization v. State, 285 P.3d 52

In 2007 the Washington Legislature authorized the governor to enter into fuel tax compacts with federally recognized tribes to address tribal immunities and preemption of state motor fuel taxes.
The State entered into multiple fuel tax compacts under which tribes agreed to comply with statutory requirements in exchange for a 75% refund of state fuel taxes.
AUTO, a trade association, sued alleging the compacts violate the Washington Constitution and seek declarations that disbursements from the motor vehicle fund are unconstitutional and to stop those disbursements.
The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to join indispensable tribal parties under CR 19, due to tribal sovereign immunity, and AUTO sought direct review.
The majority held that tribes are necessary but not indispensable parties; joinder is not feasible because of sovereign immunity, and the action may proceed without them under CR 19(b) balancing; the dissent would require dismissal (tribal immunity and indispensability) and would bar proceeding without the tribes.
The decision involves evaluating whether tribal parties are indispensable under CR 19 and, if not feasible to join, whether the suit may proceed in equity and good conscience without them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are tribes indispensable under CR 19(a)?	AUTO argues tribes are necessary but not joinable due to immunity; if not joinable, action should proceed under CR 19(b).	The State contends tribes are indispensable because their interests are not adequately represented and immunity prevents joinder.	Yes for CR 19(a) necessity, but no for indispensability under CR 19(b) (in this case the action may proceed without tribes).
May the suit proceed without the tribes under CR 19(b) despite tribal immunity?	Immunity is not a trump that always blocks adjudication; public-interest concerns may override.	Immunity strongly weighs against proceeding without the tribes; four-factor balance supports dismissal.	Four CR 19(b) factors weighed in favor of dismissal due to tribal immunity, but majority held proceeding without tribes was permissible under CR 19(b).

Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2005) (abrogated on other grounds by Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc.)
Am. Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull, 305 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2002) (interest must be legally protected; contracting interests may qualify)
Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1968) (indispensability guided by pragmatic equitable considerations)
Shields v. Barrow, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 130 (U.S. 1854) (doctrine of indispensable parties rooted in equity for complete justice)
Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal sovereignty and immunity; absence can bar suit)