Koniag, Inc. v. Andrew Airways Inc.
3:13-cv-00051
D. AlaskaSep 30, 2014Background
- Koniag, an Alaska Native Regional Corporation that merged with Karluk Native Corporation, alleges defendants built and operate Mary’s Creek Cabin on Koniag-owned land without consent.
- Koniag sued for intentional trespass, ejectment, and to quiet title; it also sought declaratory relief about the Merger, NAGPRA, adverse possession (ANILCA), Public Law 280, and tribal jurisdiction.
- Koniag voluntarily dismissed claims against Andrew Airways and Dean Andrew; Alicia Reft (individually and as Karluk Tribal Council President) moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and asserted sovereign immunity.
- Reft’s motion argued the complaint presents only state-law claims and that any federal issues are anticipatory defenses, not proper bases for federal-question jurisdiction.
- The court treated Reft’s challenge as a facial 12(b)(1) attack, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule and analyzed whether declaratory claims, NAGPRA, Public Law 280, federal Indian common law, or ANILCA complete preemption supplied federal jurisdiction.
- The court concluded Koniag’s complaint does not present a federal question on its face, declaratory claims could not bootstrap jurisdiction, ANILCA did not completely preempt state law, and dismissed Reft from the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 | Koniag: declaratory claims and prospective federal defenses (NAGPRA, Public Law 280, federal Indian law) present federal issues | Reft: complaint asserts state-law claims; federal issues are anticipated defenses and cannot confer jurisdiction | Court: No federal question on the face of the complaint; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether Declaratory Judgment Act enables federal jurisdiction | Koniag: declaratory relief raises federal issues that a coercive federal suit by Reft could present | Reft: any action Reft might bring would be declaratory or defensive, not coercive federal claims | Court: Declaratory relief does not expand jurisdiction; hypothetical coercive federal suits are absent |
| Whether NAGPRA or Public Law 280 create coercive federal causes of action here | Koniag: Reft could bring coercive federal claims under these statutes, supporting jurisdiction | Reft: Any NAGPRA or PL 280 issues would be defenses or declaratory, not coercive federal claims | Court: NAGPRA and PL 280 do not supply a coercive predicate; no jurisdiction |
| Whether ANILCA completely preempts state law (complete preemption doctrine) | Koniag: ANILCA’s exemption from adverse possession converts state claims into federal ones | Reft: Any adverse possession claim would be state law; ANILCA would be a defense, not a basis for complete preemption | Court: ANILCA does not demonstrate extraordinary preemptive force here; complete preemption not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (establishes the well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (discusses complete preemption doctrine)
- Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, 414 U.S. 661 (federal-law possession claim arose on plaintiff’s face)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (anticipatory federal defenses cannot create federal jurisdiction)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (in declaratory actions, ask whether a coercive suit by defendant would present a federal question)
- Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358 (Ninth Circuit on facial jurisdictional attacks)
- K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (Ninth Circuit on limited scope of complete preemption)
- Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249 (Ninth Circuit describing complete preemption as jurisdictional)