360 F. Supp. 3d 122
N.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Oneida Indian Nation (Plaintiff) sued Melvin L. Phillips, Sr. and the Melvin L. Phillips, Sr./Orchard Party Trust (Defendants) over possession of 19.6 acres said to be part of the Oneida reservation; Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Defendants filed a counterclaim asserting that the Orchard Party Oneida (via Defendant Trust as successor-in-interest) holds rights to the 19.6 acres based on an 1842 state treaty (Treaty of Buffalo Creek) and related documents; Defendants seek declaratory relief and recognition of Trust rights.
- Plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6) (construed as also 12(b)(1) in part), arguing the counterclaim fails to plead a federal basis for title, mischaracterizes tribal status, is barred by prior settlement litigation, and is foreclosed by tribal sovereign immunity.
- Defendants opposed, contending supplemental jurisdiction is proper, federal equitable doctrines (Sherrill, Cayuga) and the Buffalo Creek treaty support their claim, the quitclaim and trust conveyance are valid, and sovereign immunity does not bar their counterclaim (invoking immovable-property exception and equitable fairness).
- The Court applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards and federal Indian title principles (Nonintercourse Act and federal supremacy over Indian title) and found the counterclaim implausible on multiple independent grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counterclaim pleads a federal-law basis for Indian title in Orchard Party Oneida | No: counterclaim fails to identify a federal source of Orchard Party rights; alleges only supplemental jurisdiction | Yes: rights arise under federal law/equitable doctrines and are related to Plaintiff's claim; supplemental jurisdiction proper | Dismissed: pleadings admit land belonged to Plaintiff; no plausible federal recognition of separate Orchard Party title |
| Whether Orchard Party Oneida is a separate tribe with enforceable Indian-title rights | No: Orchard Party are members of Oneida Nation; prior decisions and federal agencies reject separate tribal status | Recognition unnecessary; family/factional title and treaty constructions support rights | Dismissed: courts and government have treated Oneidas as one Nation; allegations insufficient to plausibly allege separate tribal status |
| Preclusion or effect of prior settlement litigation (Jewell) and Defendant Phillips' prior objection | Settlement and Judge Kahn's approval confirmed Plaintiff's title; Phillips objected and did not appeal, so claim is precluded | Counterclaim not identical to settlement; Orchard Party was not a party and settlement cannot bind non-parties | Dismissed: prior proceedings and the failure to appeal undermine counterclaim; counterclaim contradicts prior litigation posture |
| Applicability of tribal sovereign immunity to bar affirmative counterclaims | Sovereign immunity bars affirmative relief against tribe absent waiver or congressional abrogation; counterclaim seeks affirmative relief | Tribe waived immunity by suing; or immovable-property exception/ equity should allow counterclaim | Dismissed: sovereign immunity applies; Second Circuit precedent forecloses creating exceptions; cannot sustain affirmative counterclaim against tribe |
Key Cases Cited
- Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, New York, 414 U.S. 661 (recognizing federal law governs Indian title)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires plausible factual allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions insufficient; plausibility standard)
- Cramer v. United States, 261 U.S. 219 (federal respect for Indian right of occupancy)
- Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517 (early recognition of federal control over Indian title)
- Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (principle that Indian title extinguishable only by federal action)
- Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County, N.Y., 761 F.3d 218 (Second Circuit on tribal sovereign immunity and limits on exceptions)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (tribal sovereign immunity principles)
- Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 138 S. Ct. 1649 (Supreme Court decision noted as not resolving immovable-property exception)