George v. Moz
1:24-cv-03158
| E.D. Wash. | Aug 25, 2025Background
- Defendants Merly Moz and Mariah Fraide lawfully purchased a home in Wapato, WA, from Basil George (plaintiffs’ father), with Moz's daughter living with her.
- Plaintiffs (Monique and Veszono George) are Basil George’s children and members of the Yakama Tribe; the property is not on tribal land, and Moz is not a member.
- Basil George, with plaintiffs’ assistance, sued Moz and Fraide in Yakama Tribal Court to eject them; Moz filed a contrary action in Yakima County Superior Court and obtained an injunction preventing plaintiffs from removing her.
- The Yakama Tribunal ordered Moz to vacate the home; Moz and Fraide were forcibly removed by tribal police, despite her state court injunction.
- Yakima County Superior Court found plaintiffs in contempt, ordered them to vacate, and awarded summary judgment, possession of property, and damages to Moz.
- Plaintiffs then filed this federal suit, alleging their federal and tribal rights were violated by the state court proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of state court jurisdiction and actions | State court lacked jurisdiction, ignored tribal court, permitted false filings | State court acted properly; plaintiffs failed to state a claim | Defendants entitled to summary judgment |
| Private right of action under cited criminal statutes | Plaintiffs' rights under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245, 361 were violated | These statutes don’t provide a civil cause of action | No private right of action under these statutes |
| Claims under Title 25 and related Indian law | Defendants violated unspecified rights under Title 25 and tribal law | Plaintiffs allege no specific, actionable facts | Complaint fails to state a claim |
| § 1985(3) conspiracy to violate civil rights | Moz/Fraide conspired to deprive property rights via false suit | No evidence/allegations of racial animus or specific wrongdoing | No viable § 1985(3) claim alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must contain factual matter that is plausible on its face)
- James River Ins. Co. v. Hebert Schenk, P.C., 523 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to adverse party)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983) (elements for § 1985(3) civil rights conspiracy claim)
- Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 (9th Cir. 1982) (liberal interpretation cannot supply missing claim elements)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment burden rules described)
- Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court may grant unopposed summary judgment with sufficient showing)