Grand Canyon Skywalkdevelopment v. 'Sa' Nyu Wa Incorporated
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8512
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- GCSD and SNW entered into a long-running revenue-sharing Development and Management Agreement to develop Skywalk on Hualapai tribal land.
- Arbitration proceedings were initiated in Hualapai Tribal Court, while SNW invoked eminent domain under tribal law to condemn GCSD’s contractual interests.
- Tribal actions culminated in a declaration of taking and a TRO against GCSD, prompting GCSD to seek relief in federal court.
- District court denied GCSD’s TRO and required exhaustion of tribal remedies, relying on comity and Water Wheel precedent.
- This appeal addresses tribal jurisdiction and the exhaustion requirement, including potential exceptions (bad faith, futility, plain Montana jurisdiction).
- The panel affirms the district court’s exhaustion ruling, finding no applicable exception to excuse exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of tribal remedies is required before federal review. | GCSD argues exhaustion is required except in exceptions. | SNW contends exhaustion applies; no exception shown. | No, exhaustion required; exceptions not satisfied. |
| Whether the tribal court acted in bad faith to excuse exhaustion. | GCSD asserts tribal court/council acted in bad faith to trigger exception. | SNW argues no bad-faith conduct established by tribal court. | Bad faith by tribal court not proven; exception not satisfied. |
| Whether futility excused exhaustion given lack of opportunity to challenge jurisdiction. | GCSD contends futile to pursue tribal remedies. | SNW contends tribal remedies available and adequate. | Futility not shown; remedies available and adequate. |
| Whether Montana’s framework would plainly deny tribal jurisdiction here. | GCSD relies on Montana’s main rule to deny tribal authority. | SNW argues Montana exceptions or Water Wheel framework apply. | Not plainly lacking jurisdiction under Montana; Water Wheel supports jurisdiction. |
| Whether tribal court had jurisdiction given the consensual nonmember relationship. | GCSD argues no tribal jurisdiction due to lack of consent or waiver. | SNW relies on Montana exceptions and consent through contract. | Tribal court has jurisdiction under Montana’s exceptions or consensual relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (U.S. 1985) (exhaustion preferred; comity and tribal self-government)
- Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011) (tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers on tribal land; Montana not always required)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1981) (core rule about tribal authority on nonmembers on Indian land; Montana exceptions)
- Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (U.S. 2008) (consent and economic relations can support tribal jurisdiction)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Red Wolf, 196 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1999) (exhaustion exceptions analysis guidance)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1997) (Montana framework clarifies tribal jurisdiction on land)