J.L. Ward Associates, Inc. v. Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Health Board
842 F. Supp. 2d 1163
D.S.D.2012Background
- Great Plains, a multi-tribe entity formed to interact with IHS and other federal agencies, is asserting sovereign immunity from Ward’s suit.
- Ward alleges breach of contract, copyright infringement, and related claims arising from ATR grant work performed for Great Plains in 2007 and 2010.
- Great Plains is an incorporated entity under South Dakota law formed by sixteen tribes; its governance is tribally connected, with members on its board drawn from the tribes.
- A 2007 contract contained a mediation/arbitration clause and a survival provision for certain sections, including copyright and dispute resolution.
- Ward later sought to compel arbitration of contract-based claims; the court granted partial dismissal to allow an amendment to pursue arbitration of those claims if a 2010 contract exists.
- The court treated sovereign immunity as a jurisdictional issue, held Great Plains is immune, and allowed Ward 21 days to amend to plead a claim to compel arbitration for copyright-related contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Great Plains is entitled to sovereign immunity against Ward’s claims | Ward argues immunity does not apply to the entity; asserts breach, copyright, and related claims. | Great Plains is a tribal entity/agency entitled to sovereign immunity as an arm of multiple tribes. | Great Plains is immune; sovereign immunity bars the suit absent waiver or congressional authorization. |
| Whether Congress or contract waivers permit federal court jurisdiction over copyright and related claims | Copyright Act provides waiver of sovereign immunity for copyright claims. | Copyright Act does not unequivocally abrogate tribal immunity; waiver by contract must be explicit. | Copyright Act does not waive tribal immunity; waiver is limited to arbitration/enforcement under the contract. |
| Whether the dispute-resolution clause in the 2007 (and possibly 2010) contract waives sovereign immunity to permit federal court adjudication | Clause waives immunity to permit court consideration of all claims. | Clause only allows arbitration and court review of arbitration awards; not a general waiver to hear merits. | Waiver is limited to arbitration and enforcement; court cannot adjudicate non-arbitrable claims at this stage. |
| Whether the court has diversity jurisdiction over Ward’s claims despite sovereign immunity | Ward contends jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. | Ward’s Article may be diverse; but sovereign immunity defeats jurisdiction for merits. | Diversity exists (Ward is California; Great Plains is South Dakota), but sovereign immunity precludes judicial resolution of the claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project, Inc., 157 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 1998) (tribal immunity extended to intertribal entity serving tribal goals)
- Dille v. Council of Energy Resources Tribes, 801 F.2d 373 (10th Cir. 1986) (tribal immunity for a council/tribal entity with close governance links)
- Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Econ. Dev. Auth., 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010) (multifactor subordinate economic entity analysis for immunity)
- Gavie v. Little Six, Inc., 555 N.W.2d 284 (Minn. 1996) (three Gavie factors for immunity of tribal business entities)
- C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (U.S. 2001) (arbitration clause can express waiver of sovereign immunity)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (sovereign immunity extends to tribes and closely affiliated entities)
- Runyon ex rel. B.R. v. AVCP, 84 P.3d 437 (Alaska 2004) (Runyon’s real party in interest analysis discussed but not controlling here)
- Wright v. Prairie Chicken, 1998 S.D. 46, 579 N.W.2d 7 (S.D. 1998) (SD Supreme Court factors for sovereign immunity under Gavie-like analysis)