790 F.3d 791
8th Cir.2015Background
- Two Indian allottees (Two Shields and Defender Wilson) leased oil-and-gas rights on trust allotments after BIA sealed-bid auctions; BIA certified leases "in the best interest of the Indian mineral owner" and approved them in 2007–2008.
- Plaintiffs sued lessee defendants in North Dakota state court (putative class action) alleging aiding-and-abetting, tortious inducement, conspiracy to cause the United States to breach fiduciary duties, and related equitable remedies to recover lessees' profits.
- Plaintiffs separately sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking money damages for alleged BIA breaches; that court later granted summary judgment for the United States, finding claims addressed by the Cobell settlement (decision on appeal).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)/Rule 19 for failure to join the United States as a required party; the U.S. filed an amicus brief asserting it was a required (and unjoinable) party.
- The district court dismissed for failure to join the United States; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding the U.S. was a required party under Rule 19(a) and, because it could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, dismissal under Rule 19(b) was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States is a "required" party under Rule 19(a) | Plaintiffs: relief sought is only monetary from lessees; U.S. not indispensable | Defendants/U.S.: U.S. has direct interests in lease administration and would be implicated by a finding the BIA breached fiduciary duties | Held: U.S. is a required party; its interests would be impaired/impeded absent joinder |
| Whether Rule 19 inapplicable because U.S. is merely a joint tortfeasor | Plaintiffs: Temple means joint tortfeasors need not be joined | Defendants/U.S.: U.S. interests go beyond ordinary joint liability (administration, enforcement, title consequences) | Held: Temple does not bar Rule 19 where absent party's interests are substantial and distinct; U.S. implicated |
| Whether joinder is feasible given sovereign immunity and thus whether dismissal under Rule 19(b) is required | Plaintiffs: dismissal deprives them of remedy; lessees can defend and protect U.S. interests | Defendants/U.S.: U.S. has not waived immunity and cannot be joined; lessees cannot adequately represent government interests | Held: Joinder not feasible; under Rule 19(b) dismissal appropriate in equity and good conscience |
| Whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy if this action is dismissed | Plaintiffs: would be left without recourse against lessees | Defendants/U.S.: Plaintiffs already sued U.S. in Court of Federal Claims; that forum may provide relief or is otherwise an adequate alternative | Held: Existence of the claims action in the Court of Federal Claims (and its summary judgment ruling tied to Cobell) supports dismissal; plaintiffs have an alternative forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Rysavy, 809 F.2d 1317 (8th Cir. 1987) (U.S. as allotting agent is necessary party where its actions are central to title and trust interests)
- Temple v. Synthes Corp., Ltd., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (joint tortfeasor principle and advisory committee note on permissive joinder)
- Laker Airways, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC, 182 F.3d 843 (11th Cir. 1999) (an absent party that actively figures in core allegations may be required under Rule 19)
- Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008) (where sovereign immunity bars joinder and claims are nonfrivolous with potential injury to sovereign interests, dismissal is required)
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102 (1968) (no binding adjudication of rights against absent party not joined)
- Cobell v. Salazar, 679 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (approval/affirmation of settlement relevant to the availability of plaintiffs' claims against the United States)