513 F.Supp.3d 1262
E.D. Wash.2021Background
- In 1984 the BIA-approved Master Lease (No. 82-21) granted MA-8 to William Evans; Evans subleased portions to the Colville Tribal Enterprise Corporation (CTEC) for a casino in 1993–1994. Evans died in 2003; Wapato Heritage later acquired his leasehold/life‑estate interests.
- An agreed-upon accounting by the Sells Group (2005 report, provided to Wapato Heritage in 2007) allegedly showed $751,285 overpaid by Evans to the BIA (1984–2003) and $886,248 underpaid by CTEC to Evans (1994–1998).
- This Court and the Ninth Circuit previously held the Master Lease expired in 2009 and that the BIA was not a party to such leases (Wapato I), limiting some contractual claims against the United States.
- Wapato Heritage asserted crossclaims (2010 amended) against the Federal Defendants, Colville Tribes, and allottees for declaratory relief, ejectment, overpayment (breach of contract), underpayment/failure to collect (breach of trust), partition, and fees.
- The Colville Tribes moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity; Federal Defendants moved to dismiss Wapato Heritage’s remaining crossclaims and opposed transfer to the Court of Federal Claims. The court found MA‑8 is trust land (law of the case) and resolved jurisdiction, waiver, and standing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colville Tribes waived sovereign immunity by contract or litigation conduct | Wapato Heritage: CTEC/Tribes waived immunity in the sublease and replacement lease clauses; Tribe’s litigation participation waived immunity | Colville Tribes: waiver clauses apply only to CTEC or are limited; tribal immunity cannot be implied or waived by CTEC; litigation conduct did not clearly waive immunity | Court: No waiver. Tribal immunity stands; Colville Tribes dismissed from Wapato’s crossclaims |
| Whether transfer to the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is appropriate for Wapato’s money claims | Wapato Heritage: Transfer preferable because Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Tucker/Indian Tucker Act claims | Federal Defendants: Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction (U.S. not party to leases); even if jurisdictional, Wapato fails to state a colorable claim; transfer not in interests of justice | Court: Denied transfer. Court of Federal Claims would lack jurisdiction for contract claim and Wapato fails to show colorable Tucker Act/Indian Tucker Act claim |
| Whether the BIA breached money‑mandating fiduciary duties (breach of trust) and whether Wapato is the real party in interest/has standing | Wapato Heritage: BIA had duties (citing 25 C.F.R. §162.108) to inform/collect after Sells Report; Wapato inherited Evans’s claims and is entitled to relief | Federal Defendants: Plaintiff fails to identify a money‑mandating source imposing the alleged duties; duties run to Indian owners (Evans/estate), not to a non‑Indian LLC; Wapato lacks standing/real party status | Court: Wapato failed to identify a money‑mandating statute/regulation for the alleged underpayments (1994–1998) and failed to show it was the real party in interest for any post‑2006 duty to inform/collect; breach‑of‑trust claims dismissed |
| Declaratory relief, ejectment, partition and related remedies given law‑of‑the‑case that MA‑8 is trust land | Wapato Heritage: lease replacement was void ab initio for lack of notice; entitled to votes/distributions as life tenant; seeks declaratory relief and ejectment/partition | Federal Defendants/Colville: MA‑8 is trust land; prior rulings dispose of lease validity; applicable regulations provide distribution rules; claims are moot or unsupported | Court: Many claims barred by law of the case (MA‑8 trust land). Remaining declaratory and property claims lack jurisdiction or merit and are dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. v. United States, 637 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA approval role does not make United States a contracting party to Indian leases)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (two‑part test: identify money‑mandating source and allege government failed to perform it for Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (statutes/regulations can create money‑mandating fiduciary duties subjecting the United States to liability)
- Stock West Corp. v. Lujan, 982 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1993) (tribal sovereign immunity bars suit absent clear waiver)
- Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2008) (tribal corporations that are arms of the tribe share tribal sovereign immunity)
- Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (a tribe’s affirmative suit does not waive immunity to separate adverse claims)
- Moody v. United States, 931 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires the United States to be a party to the contract at issue)
- McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act and district court jurisdictional boundaries)
- Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn, 716 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2013) (federal courts must resolve jurisdictional questions; cannot assume hypothetical jurisdiction)
- United States v. Algoma Lumber Co., 305 U.S. 415 (1939) (exercise of trust responsibilities does not automatically create contractual obligations of the United States)