Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band Choctaw Indians
732 F.3d 409
5th Cir.2013Background
- Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General operate a store on the Choctaw reservation in Mississippi under Choctaw lease and tribal license.
- John Doe, a 13-year-old Choctaw member, was assigned to the Dollar General store through the Tribe's Youth Opportunity Program (YOP).
- Doe sued Dolgencorp and Townsend in tribal court in January 2005 for assault while Doe was assigned to the store, seeking damages.
- Dolgencorp and Townsend moved to dismiss for lack of tribal subject-matter jurisdiction; tribal court denied the motions.
- Choctaw Supreme Court, applying Montana v. United States, held subject-matter jurisdiction existed over both Dolgencorp and Townsend and dismissed the appeal to the lower court.
- Dolgencorp filed suit in federal district court seeking to enjoin tribal court proceedings, arguing lack of tribal jurisdiction; the district court denied Dolgencorp’s motion for summary judgment on jurisdiction but granted relief against Townsend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montana's consensual relationship exception supports tribal jurisdiction over Doe's tort claims. | Dolgencorp argues no nexus or insufficient nexus to the YOP since the relationship was not commercial or targeted to tribal self-government. | Doe contends the consensual relationship with the tribe suffices to confer jurisdiction under Montana and Plains Commerce Bank. | Yes, tribal jurisdiction exists under the first Montana exception. |
| Whether there is a nexus between Dolgencorp's YOP participation and Doe's tort claims. | Dolgencorp asserts no nexus to the tort claims arising from Townsend's actions. | Doe argues the YOP placement on tribal land creates a direct nexus to the alleged misconduct. | There is a nexus; the YOP participation ties to the alleged misconduct. |
| Whether Plains Commerce Bank narrowed Montana's first exception demanding an internal-governance nexus. | Dolgencorp argues Plains Commerce requires exclusive focus on intratribal governance. | Tribe argues Plains Commerce permits broader nexus by regulatory effect on self-government. | Plains Commerce Bank does not require a narrow, case-by-case internal-relations proof; a broad nexus is permissible. |
| Whether off-reservation conduct can support tribal jurisdiction under Montana. | Dolgencorp argues off-reservation conduct cannot be regulated or jurisdiction asserted. | Tribe maintains jurisdiction can extend to nonmembers’ conduct related to activity on reservation. | Off-reservation conduct not reached because argument was waived; jurisdiction analysis focused on on-reservation nexus. |
| Whether punitive damages affect tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers. | Dolgencorp contends punitive damages implicate due process and bar tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers. | Punitive damages are civil, not criminal, and do not negate tribal jurisdiction; they do not affect jurisdictional authority. | Punitive damages do not affect tribal court’s jurisdiction over Doe's claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 1981) (two Montana exceptions to tribal civil jurisdiction; consensual relationship and internal-relations nexus)
- Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (Supreme Court 2001) (nexus required between the consensual relationship and regulation)
- Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., Inc., 554 U.S. 316 (Supreme Court 2008) (limits Montana first exception; regulation must affect tribal self-government or internal relations with nexus)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court 1997) (tribal adjudicative jurisdiction does not exceed tribal legislative jurisdiction)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (Supreme Court 2001) (limits tribal civil jurisdiction over nonmembers; due process considerations)