K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16136
9th Cir.2011Background
- K2 America Corporation sues Roland Oil & Gas, LLC over an oil-and-gas lease on land partly located in allotments where title is held by the United States in trust for Blackfeet Indian allottees.
- K2 alleges tort, contract, and statutory claims seeking, among other relief, a constructive trust and declaratory relief related to the Allotment Lease.
- Harper, a contract operator to K2, formed Roland to acquire the Subject Leases, including the Allotment Lease.
- The Allotment Lease covers lands in which the U.S. holds title in trust for Blackfeet members; some of the land is Indian allotted land.
- District court dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, holding § 1360 and the impliedories of § 1331 were unavailable; this court reviews de novo.
- The Ninth Circuit affirms, concluding federal jurisdiction does not exist over these state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1360(b) provides federal jurisdiction over land held in trust | K2 relies on §1360(b) as the basis for federal preemption/ownership questions. | Roland argues §1360(b) limits state jurisdiction and does not grant federal jurisdiction. | No federal jurisdiction under §1360(b); it does not confer jurisdiction. |
| Whether complete preemption applies to transform state claims into federal claims | K2 relies on Oneida I as an extraordinary preemption to confer jurisdiction. | Roland contends Oneida I is distinguishable and does not apply here. | Not applicable; complete preemption does not apply to this dispute. |
| Whether arising-under jurisdiction exists via federal regulation of tribal leases | K2 argues that a federal regulatory framework makes relief depend on federal law. | Roland argues the lease regulation does not confer a federal question. | No arising-under jurisdiction; federal regulation of leases does not create a federal question. |
| Whether 25 U.S.C. §345 or 28 U.S.C. §1353 confer jurisdiction | K2 suggests §345/§1353 would provide jurisdiction for allotment-related claims. | Roland notes these provisions do not apply to state corporations. | Sections 345 and 1353 do not apply; no federal jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1974) (limits where state-law claims assert federal possessory rights; can preempt in tribal-lands context)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (complete preemption requires preemptive force converting state claims into federal ones)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (establishes framework for arising under jurisdiction and federal-question analysis)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (recognizes need to involve substantial federal question in some land-title contexts)
- Holman v. Laulo-Rowe Agency, 994 F.2d 666 (9th Cir. 1993) (recognizes complete preemption as exceptional; narrow application)
- Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo Nation, 373 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (regulatory scheme does not automatically create jurisdiction; lease-specific aspects matter)
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Oneida I), 414 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1974) (foundational case for federal-question arising from possession rights in Indian lands)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (articulates general jurisdictional principles for federal courts)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (limits Federal jurisdiction to what is plead; burden on party asserting jurisdiction)
- Bryan v. Itasca Cnty., 426 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1976) (Public Law 280 and reservation boundaries context; limits on civil jurisdiction)