Paiute-Shoshone Indians of Bishop Community of Bishop Colony v. City of Los Angeles
637 F.3d 993
9th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiff Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community seeks restoration of Bishop Tribal Land held by City of Los Angeles.
- US acquired and set aside Bishop Tribal Land in trust for Plaintiff by 1924; land later exchanged in 1937 under a federal act.
- 1937 act allowed exchange of Owens Valley land for City land, requiring majority consent, water rights appurtenant, and equal value in the exchange.
- July 1937 exchange conveyed the Bishop Tribal Land to the City; water rights appurtenant to exchanged lands were reserved and not valued in appraisals.
- May 18, 1938, the US and City executed a deed reflecting the exchange; since 1941 the City has excluded Plaintiff from occupation of the Bishop Land.
- Plaintiff filed suit in 2006 seeking ejectment and restoration of possession; district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join the United States under Rule 19.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States is a required party under Rule 19(a). | US would need to be bound for complete relief and to vindicate the claim. | Not necessary to join if complete relief could be afforded otherwise. | United States is a required party under Rule 19(a). |
| Whether the United States can feasibly be joined in the action. | ICCA waiver allows joining the United States despite immunity. | ICCA provides exclusive remedy; timely filing required and cannot join. | United States cannot be feasibly joined; ICCA precludes adjudication here. |
| Whether the case may proceed in equity and good conscience without the United States under Rule 19(b). | Plaintiff has no other forum and should proceed in absence of US. | Proceeding would prejudice City and US interests; not appropriate. | Rule 19(b) factors do not permit proceeding in absence of United States. |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968) (outsider cannot be bound by a judgment without being a party)
- Yellowstone County v. Pease, 96 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.1996) (two-part Rule 19(a) analysis for required parties)
- Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.2002) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(7) dismissal)
- Navajo Tribe of Indians v. New Mexico, 809 F.2d 1455 (10th Cir.1987) (ICCA exclusive jurisdiction governs claims against United States)
- Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge Indian Reservation v. United States, 650 F.2d 140 (8th Cir.1981) (ICCA precludes constitutional taking claims against US)
- Klamath Indian Tribe v. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, 473 U.S. 753 (1985) (ICCA does not create new avenues when relief is possible otherwise)
- Swim v. Bergland, 696 F.2d 712 (9th Cir.1983) (ICCA not applicable where tribes defend interests vs. US action)
- Puyallup Indian Tribe v. Port of Tacoma, 717 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir.1983) (Rule 19(b) exception not applicable where US interests are implicated)
- Lyon v. Gila River Indian Community, 626 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.2010) (Puyallup exception clarified)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (sovereign immunity and public-lands questions; estoppel considerations)
- Fort Mojave Tribe v. Lafollette, 478 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir.1973) (standing to assert interests where United States holds title)
- Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968) (as above; see Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson)