Paul Grondal v. United States, 21 F.4th 1140

MA-8 is a Moses-band allotment originally patented in trust to Wapato John; legal title vested in the United States (held by the BIA), with beneficial interests in multiple individual allottees (IAs), Wapato Heritage LLC, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
In 1984 the IAs (via BIA approval) executed a Master Lease to William W. Evans Jr. for 25 years with a 25‑year renewal option; Evans developed Mill Bay RV Park and sold member agreements marketed as lasting through 2034.
Evans’s purported 1985 renewal notice was never given to the IAs as the lease required; Wapato Heritage (Evans’s successor) later sued, lost in district court and on appeal (Wapato Heritage I), and the Master Lease expired in 2009 without a valid extension.
Mill Bay and Paul Grondal sued for a declaratory judgment asserting rights to occupy MA-8 through 2034; the BIA counterclaimed for trespass/ejectment. The district court denied Mill Bay’s defenses in 2010, then (after delays) granted BIA summary judgment and ejectment in 2020.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed four primary defenses: BIA standing (trust status of MA-8), res judicata based on a 2004 state-court settlement, Master Lease ¶8 (assignment of subleases on termination), and equitable estoppel based on prior BIA conduct; the panel affirmed the district court on all points.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
BIA standing / trust status of MA-8	MA-8 is no longer trust land (trust extensions were invalid); BIA lacks standing to eject	MA-8 remained in trust through successive lawful extensions; BIA holds legal title and can sue for trespass	MA-8 remains held in trust; the challenged trust extensions were lawful; BIA has standing to seek ejectment
Res judicata (2004 state settlement)	2004 Settlement Agreement (state mediation) granted Mill Bay use through 2034 and precludes BIA ejectment	BIA was not a party to the state litigation and was not in privity with Wapato Heritage; claims differ	No res judicata: BIA not party/privity; the federal suit concerns different claims (Master Lease renewal)
Master Lease ¶8 (assignment of subleases on termination)	¶8 preserves/assigns Mill Bay members’ subleases so members remain through 2034	¶8 applies only if lease was terminated prematurely (cancellation); lease here expired by passage of time	¶8 does not apply to ordinary expiration; Master Lease expired without renewal, so subleases were not preserved beyond lease term
Equitable estoppel (BIA representations)	BIA’s conduct and representations induced reliance; estoppel should bar ejectment	United States acting as trustee for Indian land is not subject to equitable estoppel (City of Tacoma)	City of Tacoma controls; equitable estoppel unavailable against the U.S. in its trustee capacity; defense fails

Starr v. Long Jim, 227 U.S. 613 (1913) (Moses Agreement did not guarantee fee title and allowed U.S. to hold allotments in trust)
United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574 (9th Cir. 2003) (U.S. as trustee for Indian land not subject to equitable estoppel)
Wapato Heritage LLC v. United States, 637 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011) (prior appeal confirming requirements for lease renewal notice under the Master Lease)
County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) (historical context on allotment trust protections and alienability/taxation)
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (discussion of trust restrictions, including alienation and taxation)
DeCoteau v. Dist. Cnty. Ct., 420 U.S. 425 (1975) (Congressional authorization and treatment of trust relations)
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (distinguishing when government actions may reflect sovereign interests rather than pure trustee actions)