69 Cal.App.5th 736
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Findleton contracted with the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians to perform construction and equipment-rental work; the Tribe-prepared AIA-based agreements contained mediation/arbitration clauses (AAA rules) and a limited waiver of sovereign immunity tied to arbitration and recourse to casino assets.
- After payment disputes, Findleton petitioned the Mendocino County Superior Court (2012) to compel mediation/arbitration; the Tribe repeatedly asserted sovereign immunity and later asserted tribal-court jurisdiction.
- This Court in Findleton I and Findleton II held the Tribe waived sovereign immunity for enforcement of the arbitration clauses and affirmed fee awards to Findleton; the superior court later ordered mediation/arbitration under AAA rules and awarded additional sanctions and fees when the Tribe refused to comply.
- The Tribe then filed proceedings in a tribal court and procured injunctions aimed at AAA, which caused AAA to close the file; the Tribe also transferred claimed casino assets to tribally controlled entities (found by the superior court to be a fraudulent transfer) and obstructed post-judgment discovery and debtor examinations.
- The Tribe appealed five superior-court orders (sanctions, discovery sanctions, denial of exemption from execution, order requiring an undertaking, denial of clarification), while failing to pay the judgments or post an undertaking; Findleton moved to dismiss the appeals under the disentitlement doctrine for the Tribe’s ongoing contempt and obstruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of orders (denial of exemption, undertaking, clarification, discovery order) | These orders are enforceable post-judgment and thus appealable under §904.1(a)(2). | The orders are interlocutory and not appealable. | Appealable: they are orders made after final, appealable fee/sanctions judgments and fall under §904.1(a)(2). |
| Whether disentitlement doctrine should dismiss the appeals | Tribe repeatedly and willfully disobeyed superior-court orders (refused arbitration, obstructed collections, fraudulently transferred assets), justifying dismissal until compliance. | Motion is untimely, merits-based, and Tribe could not comply because tribal-court injunctions prevented participation. | Dismissal warranted: Tribe’s flagrant, continuing noncompliance and obstruction justify disentitlement; appeals dismissed without prejudice, subject to reinstatement if Tribe complies within 90 days. |
| Effect of tribal-court injunctions and impossibility defense | Tribal-court injunctions do not excuse noncompliance; Tribe could have withdrawn tribal actions or paid judgments; inability to comply is self-created. | Tribal-court injunctions forbid tribal representatives from participating in state collection or arbitration, making compliance impossible. | Rejected: tribal injunctions do not excuse the Tribe’s continued flouting of superior-court orders; the Tribe had control and alternatives. |
| Fraud on the court based on tribal-court provenance and constitution inconsistencies | Findleton alleges the Tribe misrepresented the tribal court’s status and operated under inconsistent constitutions, amounting to fraud on the court. | Tribe denies fraud and attacks the credibility/motives of Findleton’s witnesses. | Court need not reach fraud-on-the-court issue; it found disentitlement supported by noncompliance alone and found no persuasive evidence of fraud requiring dismissal on that ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, 1 Cal.App.5th 1194 (Cal. Ct. App.) (tribe waived sovereign immunity for enforcement of arbitration clause)
- Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, 27 Cal.App.5th 565 (Cal. Ct. App.) (affirming fee awards and refusing comity stay; law-of-the-case on waiver)
- Blumberg v. Minthorne, 233 Cal.App.4th 1384 (Cal. Ct. App.) (disentitlement appropriate in rare, flagrant noncompliance cases)
- Stoltenberg v. Ampton Investments, Inc., 215 Cal.App.4th 1225 (Cal. Ct. App.) (disentitlement doctrine and dismissal of appeals for willful disobedience)
- Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com, 222 Cal.App.4th 1010 (Cal. Ct. App.) (attorney-fee orders treated as appealable collateral orders)
- MacPherson v. MacPherson, 13 Cal.2d 271 (Cal.) (party cannot seek court assistance while in contempt of court orders)