Dolgencorp Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
846 F. Supp. 2d 646
S.D. Miss.2011Background
- Dolgen operates a Dollar General store on Choctaw trust land, under a lease with the Tribe and a tribal business license.
- Doe, a nonmember minor, was allegedly molested by Townsend, a tribal member, during a TYOP work placement at the store.
- Doe and parents filed suit in tribal court for damages, seeking vicarious liability of Dolgen and direct negligence claims.
- Dolgen and Townsend challenged tribal jurisdiction in tribal court; the court denied those challenges and Dolgen sued in federal court to determine tribal jurisdiction.
- Dolgen contends Plains Commerce Bank narrows Montana’s consensual relationship exception and thus tribal jurisdiction should not attach; Tribe and Does argue tribal court has jurisdiction under Montana’s first or second exceptions.
- The federal court previously denied a preliminary injunction pending jurisdictional ruling; this order addresses summary judgment on tribal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal jurisdiction exists under Montana’s first exception | Dolgen argues Plains Commerce Bank narrows the first exception | Tribe/Does contend consent and nexus to the consensual relationship justify jurisdiction | Tribe has jurisdiction under the first exception |
| Whether Plains Commerce Bank narrows the scope of the first exception | Plains Commerce Bank limits application to self-government impact | Montana framework permits jurisdiction via consensual relationship with nexus | First exception applies given nexus between TYOP consensual relationship and alleged torts |
| Whether Townsend’s authority (apparent/ratified) suffices to show Dolgen’s consent | Dolgen had no authority or ratification | Townsend had apparent authority; Dolgen ratified others’ supervision | Evidence supports Townsend’s apparent authority and Dolgen ratified, aiding jurisdiction |
| Whether the tort claims arise from the consensual relationship to support jurisdiction | Claims do not arise from the consensual relationship | Claims arise directly from Townsend’s actions within the TYOP arrangement | Claims arise from the consensual relationship; jurisdiction supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (general presumption against tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers; two Montana exceptions)
- Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) (consensual relationship exception may be narrowed; nonmember conduct on land limits tribal authority)
- Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001) (consensual relationship exception requires nexus to the relationship and to tribal authority)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc., 569 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2009) (mere consensual contacts do not automatically grant tribal jurisdiction; must nexus to conduct and self-government)
- United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) (tribal sovereignty limitations and scope of inherent authority)
- Worcester v. State of Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832) (historical context of tribal sovereignty and land rights)