Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Zinke, 688 F. App'x 480

The Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley sued the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Interior alleging breach of fiduciary duty and APA violations based on the alleged unlawful termination of the Alexander Valley Rancheria.
The Tribe claims the Secretary improperly terminated the Rancheria under the California Rancheria Act (CRA) and seeks relief tied to that alleged wrongful termination.
The Federal Defendants published notice in the Federal Register in 1961 listing those receiving land following the Rancheria termination (26 Fed. Reg. 6875 (Aug. 1, 1961)).
The district court granted summary judgment for the Federal Defendants, holding the Tribe’s claims depended on the termination allegation, that any claim accrued no later than 1961, and that the six-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)) barred the suit.
The district court also held the Tribe failed to establish equitable tolling; the Tribe relied on a 1987 BIA-area director letter recommending restoration policy, which the court found insufficient to toll the limitations period for the prior decades.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting new arguments the Tribe raised on appeal and concluding equitable tolling was not shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Tribe’s claims depend on alleged unlawful termination of the Rancheria	Tribe: claims arise from continuing federal fiduciary duties, not necessarily extinguished by termination	Fed. Defs: claims flow from the 1961 termination and notice; statute of limitations applies	All claims depend on the alleged 1961 termination; Tribe’s new appellate argument waived; summary judgment affirmed
Whether a continuing fiduciary duty prevents the statute of limitations from running	Tribe: ongoing fiduciary duty means limitations do not run	Fed. Defs: even if duty exists, statute runs once repudiation/notice occurs	Court assumed without deciding that a duty might exist but held such a duty does not prevent the limitations period from running under these facts
When statute of limitations began to run for breach-of-trust claims	Tribe: limitations not triggered until later or not at all (new appellate theory)	Fed. Defs: repudiation occurred with 1961 Federal Register notice, triggering limitations	Limitations triggered by 1961 publication; claim expired in 1967 absent tolling
Whether equitable tolling applies	Tribe: induced to delay by BIA representations (e.g., 1987 letter recommending restoration)	Fed. Defs: no diligent pursuit & no extraordinary circumstances during the critical period	Equitable tolling denied: Tribe failed to show diligence or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to toll the 1961-triggered limitations period

Robinson v. Jewell, 790 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to raise argument below waives it on appeal)
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 895 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1990) (Indian tribes are subject to statutes of limitations in actions against the United States)
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (termination-based claims can be time-barred even if termination later proved unlawful)
Shiny Rock Mining Corp. v. United States, 906 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) (publication in the Federal Register can constitute legally sufficient notice to trigger limitations)
Friends of Sierra R.R., Inc. v. I.C.C., 881 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1989) (public notice may trigger statutory deadlines regardless of actual knowledge)
Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (Supreme Court affirmed equitable-tolling standards)