Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
746 F.3d 167
5th Cir.2014Background
- Dolgencorp operates a Dollar General store on Choctaw reservation; land held in trust for the Choctaw and leased to Dolgencorp under tribal license and agreements.
- Dolgencorp participates in the Choctaw Youth Opportunity Program (YOP); a 13-year-old tribal member, John Doe, is placed at the Dollar General store where Townsend allegedly molests him.
- Doe sues Dolgencorp and Townsend in tribal court (January 2005) alleging vicarious liability, negligent hiring/training/supervision, and seeking substantial damages.
- The tribal court and Choctaw Supreme Court acknowledge subject-matter jurisdiction under Montana v. United States; case remitted to the tribal court.
- In federal court, the district court initially denied Dolgencorp’s summary-judgment motion and later granted summary judgment for tribal defendants, ruling tribal jurisdiction exists under the Montana consensual-relationship exception.
- Dolgencorp appeals, arguing lack of nexus and misapplication of Montana Plains Commerce Bank framework; the appellate panel affirms; the dissent would reverse and restrict tribal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal court has jurisdiction under Montana's first exception over nonmembers based on a consensual relationship. | Dolgencorp contends no nexus between YOP participation and torts; lack of commercial/noncommercial nexus and foreseeability. | Doe's claims arise from the consensual YOP relationship and have a nexus to tribal governance; Plains Commerce Bank does not require an extra nexus beyond the consensual relationship. | Yes; tribal court jurisdiction affirmed under the consensual-relationship exception. |
| Whether Plains Commerce Bank narrows the Montana consensual-relationship exception requiring a nexus to tribal governance or internal relations. | Plains Commerce imposes an extra requirement that the relationship implicates tribal self-government. | Plains Commerce merely clarifies the nexus; no further extra requirement beyond the consensual relationship and its regulatory context. | No additional nexus required beyond the consensual relationship as framed by Plains Commerce. |
| Whether there is a sufficient nexus between the YOP participation and Doe's tort claims. | Nexus insufficient because the torts occur outside the contractual/regulatory framework and do not implicate tribal governance. | Placement of a minor on tribal land under YOP to work in a tribal business creates a regulatory nexus to protect tribal safety; foreseeability supports jurisdiction. | Yes; nexus exists between Dolgencorp’s YOP participation and Doe’s claims. |
| Whether off-reservation conduct arguments were properly preserved and considered. | Arguments about off-reservation conduct and lack of on-reservation nexus should be addressed. | There is waiver for arguments not raised below absent extraordinary circumstances; not considered on appeal. | Waived; appellate court declines new off-reservation-conduct challenges on waiver grounds. |
| Whether punitive-damages claims affect tribal-court jurisdiction over nonmembers. | Punitive damages do not alter tribal jurisdiction; Oliphant limits criminal, not civil, authority; constitutional concerns may apply. | Punitive damages are civil and do not carry constitutional barriers to tribal jurisdiction; do not defeat jurisdiction. | Punitive damages do not defeat tribal jurisdiction; jurisdiction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (consensual-relationship exception and tribal jurisdiction framework)
- Atkinson Trading Co., Inc. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001) (nexus required between tax/regulation and consensual relationship)
- Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., Inc., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) (narrows Montana framework; discusses internal-relations impact and nexus)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (tribal adjudicative jurisdiction does not exceed tribal legislative jurisdiction)
- Hicks v. Nevada, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (concurring view on tribal civil jurisdiction and due process concerns)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc., 569 F.3d 932 (2009) (Montana framework applied to tribal adjudicative jurisdiction)
- Attorney’s Process & Investigation Servs., Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe, 609 F.3d 927 (2010) (regulation/tort nexus assessment under Montana framework)
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) (no inherent criminal jurisdiction over nonmembers; civil analogies debated)
- DISH Network Service L.L.C. v. Laducer, 725 F.3d 877 (2013) (recent articulation of tribal civil-jurisdiction limits)