Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria v. Ceiba Legal, LLP
230 F. Supp. 3d 1146
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- After a disputed 2014 tribal election at the Elem Indian Colony, rival Garcia and Brown factions each claimed control; members of the Brown faction and counsel contacted banks/agencies to freeze tribal funds.
- Plaintiff (Garcia faction) sued Brown-faction members, their counsel, and others asserting tort, fraud, RICO, Lanham Act, and related state claims; the complaint centered on an alleged conspiracy to seize tribal control.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the Court dismissed the action, holding plaintiffs claims barred by Noerr-Pennington and denied leave to amend.
- Defendants sought attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act and California’s anti-SLAPP statute; plaintiff argued tribal sovereign immunity and other defenses to fee awards.
- The Court held tribal sovereign immunity did not bar Lanham Act fee exposure when the tribe voluntarily invoked Lanham Act rights; it found the case exceptional under Octane Fitness and awarded Lanham Act fees, but declined to treat defendants’ Rule 12 motion as a proper California anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars an award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act | Tribe consented only to adjudication of claims, not to fee exposure or counterclaims | By invoking the Lanham Act, plaintiff assumed statutory consequences including fee exposure; initiation of suit waives immunity as to those consequences | Immunity does not bar a Lanham Act fee award against the plaintiff; fee exposure is an inevitable consequence of bringing Lanham Act claims |
| Whether the case is "exceptional" under the Lanham Act to justify fee-shifting | Plaintiff denied bad faith or exceptional conduct; argued claims were not Lanham-centered | Defendants argued claims were meritless and litigated unreasonably, with misrepresentations to the court | Case is exceptional due to litigation misconduct (misrepresentations) and exceptionally meritless claims; defendants entitled to fees under 15 U.S.C. §1117(a) |
| Whether defendants may recover fees under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute | Plaintiff argued defendants never filed a special motion to strike so cannot recover SLAPP fees | Defendants argued their Rule 12 motion sufficiently advanced anti‑SLAPP defenses and labeling is form over substance | Denied: the Rule 12 motion did not constitute a properly filed special motion to strike; SLAPP fees unavailable |
| Proper amount and apportionment of fees | Plaintiff challenged number of hours as excessive and, implicitly, apportionment | Defendants submitted detailed invoices, sought lodestar plus 1.5 multiplier and full recovery | Court found hours and rates reasonable, rejected multiplier, apportioned 45% of lodestar to Lanham Act work, awarding $118,366.07 in fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (tribal sovereign immunity bars suit absent waiver)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (waiver of tribal sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
- In re White, 139 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir.) (initiating suit exposes tribe to adverse determinations and limits immunity)
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (U.S.) (standards for "exceptional" case and fee-shifting analysis)
- SunEarth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.) (applying Octane Fitness to Lanham Act fee requests)
- Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 786 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.) (distinction between Rule 12 and anti‑SLAPP motions in federal court)
- Grade v. Grade, 217 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.) (apportionment principle when prevailing party has mixed Lanham and non‑Lanham claims)