Finn v. Great Plains Lending, LLC, 689 F. App'x 608

Background

Great Plains Lending, LLC is an LLC formed by the Otoe‑Missouria Tribe that offers high‑interest short‑term loans; Finn sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act after automated calls to his cell phone.
Great Plains moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), claiming tribal sovereign immunity; the district court granted the motion and denied Finn’s request for limited jurisdictional discovery.
Finn alleged Think Finance, Inc. (a non‑tribal company) effectively controlled and benefited from Great Plains, and sought narrow discovery to investigate ownership, control, profit allocations, and contracts.
The district court relied primarily on Great Plains’ organizational documents and declined to allow discovery of underlying agreements or financial arrangements.
The Tenth Circuit found Finn’s allegations specific and plausibly supported by circumstantial evidence (website listings, media reports, other pleadings) and concluded further factual development was necessary to assess tribal immunity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Great Plains is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity	Finn: Great Plains is effectively controlled by Think Finance and exists for a non‑tribal beneficiary, so immunity should not apply	Great Plains: Formally tribe‑created and organized; tribal LLC/subdivision entitled to immunity	Court: Immunity is a question of fact here; cannot resolve on papers alone — further development required
Whether the district court should permit limited jurisdictional discovery	Finn: Needs narrow discovery (contracts, financials, communications) to prove lack of tribal control/benefit	Great Plains: Immunity protects against burden of discovery; organizational documents suffice	Court: Denial was an abuse of discretion given plausible specific allegations and circumstantial evidence; discovery should be allowed narrowly
Standard for granting jurisdictional discovery when immunity is contested	Finn: When factual disputes exist about immunity, plaintiff must get opportunity to present evidence	Great Plains: Sovereign immunity ordinarily shields from suit and discovery burden	Court: Applies Tenth Circuit standards (Hansen, Sizova, Breakthrough): allow circumscribed discovery where facts are controverted or better showing is needed
What factors govern whether a tribe‑created entity has immunity	Finn: Functional evidence (control, purpose, finances) matters beyond formal paperwork	Great Plains: Formal creation and paperwork show tribal affiliation and intended immunity	Court: Adopted Breakthrough factors (creation, purpose, structure/control, tribal intent, financial ties, policy reasons) and required factual inquiry applying them

Key Cases Cited

Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (tribal immunity exists absent waiver or congressional abrogation)
Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca‑Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288 (tribal immunity extends to tribal subdivisions, including commercial activities)
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (tribal immunity not limited by off‑reservation commercial activity)
Bonnet v. Harvest (U.S.) Holdings, Inc., 741 F.3d 1155 (immunity is jurisdictional)
Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337 (sovereign immunity shields against the burden of discovery)
Hansen v. PT Bank Negara Indon. (Persero), TBK, 601 F.3d 1059 (when factual disputes exist, plaintiff must be allowed to develop jurisdictional facts)
Sizova v. Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320 (district courts have discretion to allow jurisdictional discovery; denial is abuse if prejudicial)
Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173 (identifies multi‑factor test for tribe‑created entities and reviews discovery denial for abuse of discretion)
Ignatiev v. United States, 238 F.3d 464 (denial of limited jurisdictional discovery improper where plaintiff lacks other means to uncover facts)