Raju Dahlstrom v. United States
20-35012
| 9th Cir. | Sep 7, 2021Background:
- Raju Dahlstrom appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the United States on his FTCA claim arising from his termination by the Sauk‑Suiattle Tribal Council.
- The FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity can extend to torts "resulting from the performance" of ISDEAA contracts if the tribe/tribal organization was "carrying out" such a contract when the tort occurred.
- A waiver of sovereign immunity is a prerequisite to jurisdiction, so the plaintiff bears the burden of identifying which contractual provisions the tribal organization was carrying out at the time of the tort.
- Dahlstrom failed to identify any specific contractual provisions in his opening brief tying the termination to performance of an ISDEAA contract.
- The district court entered summary judgment for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; the Ninth Circuit affirmed because Dahlstrom did not meet his jurisdictional burden.
- The court also declined to consider contractual provisions first pointed to in Dahlstrom’s reply brief, citing the rule barring new arguments raised only in reply.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTCA’s waiver applies to Dahlstrom’s termination under ISDEAA‑related activity | FTCA waiver applies because the tribal council was performing ISDEAA‑related functions when it terminated Dahlstrom | No waiver: Dahlstrom failed to identify specific contractual provisions the tribe was "carrying out" at the time of the tort | No waiver; dismissal affirmed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because Dahlstrom did not meet his burden to identify contract provisions |
| Whether the court may consider contractual provisions first identified in Dahlstrom’s reply brief | Dahlstrom attempted to cure the record by pointing to contractual provisions in reply | The United States opposed consideration of new arguments raised only in reply | Court refused to consider belated arguments; new matters on reply are not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2018) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- S.H. by Holt v. United States, 853 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2017) (issues of immunity in FTCA suits reviewed de novo)
- Shirk v. U.S. ex rel. Dep't of Interior, 773 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014) (FTCA waiver for ISDEAA contracts requires showing the tribe was "carrying out" the contract)
- Dep't of Treasury–I.R.S. v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth., 521 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2008) (waiver of sovereign immunity is prerequisite to jurisdiction; party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (courts do not consider matters first raised in an opening or reply brief)