Nahno-Lopez v. Houser
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23248
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- In 1999, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe's General Council authorized the Business Committee to acquire the plaintiffs' property, but the purchase was not consummated and litigation ensued.
- In October 2003, the Tribe and Plaintiffs entered a lease agreement under which the Tribe would pay each Plaintiff $300 annually for five years; Plaintiffs received at least four payments and did not return them.
- Plaintiffs contended the lease lacked Secretary of the Interior approval as required by 25 U.S.C. § 348, while in 2007 the BIA issued a trespass notice deeming the lease void, and the Tribe later dropped a related suit after an AUSA advised BIA impliedly approved the lease.
- Plaintiffs filed seven counts; only two survived: a § 345 jurisdiction claim and a common-law trespass claim, asserted only in defendants' individual capacities for declaratory and monetary relief.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, proffering numerous undisputed facts; the district court granted summary judgment, citing lack of genuine issues of material fact and compliance with local rule 56.1; the court did not reach sovereign or qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 345 confer jurisdiction for a federal common-law trespass claim on Indian lands? | Plaintiffs contend § 345 supports a federal claim of unlawful occupancy (trespass). | § 345 grants jurisdiction but does not create liability; trespass is not a standalone § 345 claim. | |
| However, the surviving counts can form a federal common-law trespass claim within § 345 jurisdiction. | § 345 provides jurisdiction for a federal common-law trespass claim. | ||
| Is the trespass claim governed by federal or state law for the element of trespass? | Plaintiffs rely on state trespass principles. | Federal common law governs trespass on Indian lands, with state law as the rule of decision where applicable. | Federal common law governs trespass on Indian lands; Oklahoma law supplies the rule of decision. |
| Did the district court properly grant summary judgment given undisputed facts and local rules? | Disputed facts exist; summary judgment premature. | Plaintiffs failed to comply with local rule 56.1 and did not raise genuine issues of material fact with admissible evidence. | Yes, summary judgment was proper due to failure to raise genuine issues of material fact and noncompliance with 56.1. |
| Did Plaintiffs' express consent to use the property defeat the trespass claim? | Consent was not adequately challenged; authority to lease uncertain. | Plaintiffs gave express consent to use the property, which defeats trespass as a matter of law. | Consent defeats trespass; no genuine issue of material fact remained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) (federal common law governs Indian claims)
- United States v. Milner, 583 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal common law governs trespass on Indian lands)
- California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n v. United States, 457 U.S. 273 (1982) (choice of law where federal issues allow borrowing state law as federal rule of decision)
- United States v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 28 F.3d 1544 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal common law on Indian lands; borrowing of state law allowed)
- National Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845 (1985) (federal question jurisdiction in Indian matters)