Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 346
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Contractor Robert Findleton entered into a Construction Agreement, a Rental Contract, and a Third Amendment with the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Tribe) and sought payment for work performed; the contracts contained mediation/arbitration and attorney-fee clauses.
- Findleton petitioned the Mendocino County Superior Court (2012) to compel mediation and arbitration after the Tribe failed to respond; the Tribe moved to quash service and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and failure to exhaust tribal remedies.
- The superior court initially held the Tribe had not waived sovereign immunity and later awarded fees to the Tribe; this court reversed in Findleton I (1 Cal.App.5th 1194), holding the Tribe waived immunity to arbitrate and for judicial enforcement of arbitration and awards, and reversed the Tribe’s fee award.
- On remand Findleton moved to compel arbitration and to recover appellate attorney fees he incurred enforcing the arbitration right; the Tribe asked the superior court to defer ruling pending a demurrer asserting lack of state-court jurisdiction via delegation to a tribal court.
- The superior court granted Findleton’s fee motion, awarding $28,148.75 in attorney fees and $4,591.79 in costs; the Tribe appealed. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Findleton) | Defendant's Argument (Tribe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether superior court had jurisdiction to award appellate attorney fees to enforce arbitration | The Tribe waived sovereign immunity to adjudicate/arbitrate and to permit judicial enforcement of arbitration, which includes fees incurred to enforce that right | Tribe argued it did not waive immunity as to the Rental Contract’s fee clause (basis for fees) and thus court lacked jurisdiction | Court: Law of the case bars relitigation of waiver; waiver includes fees to enforce arbitration, so court had jurisdiction |
| Whether the Tribe may raise scope/allocation-of-fees and contract-integration arguments for first time on appeal | Fees motion was litigated below; Tribe failed to contest fee clause scope or prevailing-party status, so issues were forfeited | Tribe urged appellate consideration because arguments involve law applied to undisputed facts | Court: Issues forfeited by failing to raise below; not purely legal and considering them on appeal would be unfair |
| Whether comity/tribal-exhaustion required abstention or stay so tribal court could decide jurisdiction | No functioning tribal court existed when petition was filed; exhaustion would be futile and cause prejudice/delay | Tribe relied on LaPlante and federal exhaustion/abstention principles to argue state court should defer to tribal court | Court: Where no tribal court existed when suit filed (or remained nonfunctioning), exhaustion not required; comity abstention inapplicable here |
| Whether superior court prematurely ruled on fees before deciding jurisdiction | Findleton: court properly considered and overruled jurisdictional objections and had authority to rule | Tribe: court should have deferred and not rule until demurrer/resolution of tribal-jurisdiction issue | Court: No abuse of discretion; court concluded it had jurisdiction and resolution affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Findleton v. Coyote Band of Pomo Indians, 1 Cal. App. 5th 1194 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held Tribe waived sovereign immunity to arbitrate and to judicially enforce arbitration and awards)
- Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1987) (federal comity/exhaustion requires tribal remedies be given first opportunity to decide jurisdiction)
- National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845 (U.S. 1985) (tribal remedy exhaustion doctrine explained)
- Krempel v. Prairie Island Indian Community, 125 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 1997) (no exhaustion required where tribal court did not exist when suit filed)
- C & L Enterprises v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2001) (tribal parties must raise jurisdictional and authority issues below; appellate courts reluctant to consider new arguments)
- JRS Products, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 115 Cal. App. 4th 168 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate courts ordinarily decline to consider issues not raised below)