Robert Comenout, Sr. v. Robert Whitener, Jr.
692 F. App'x 474
9th Cir.2017Background
- Comenout sued Robert W. Whitener, Jr. in federal court over claims that implicated a business lease on property involving the Quinault Indian Nation (the "Nation").
- The complaint named only Whitener, not the Nation; the district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) / 19 for failure to join a necessary and indispensable party.
- The district court found that the Nation's interests in the lease and its sovereign immunity made joinder infeasible and that the suit could not proceed fairly in the Nation's absence.
- Comenout moved for reconsideration and sought leave to file an amended complaint naming tribal officials; the district court denied relief.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal and denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion and reviewed tribal sovereign immunity questions de novo, and it affirmed the district court.
- An appeal by the Estate (No. 15-35261) was dismissed because the Estate had not been a party below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Quinault Nation is a "necessary" party under Rule 19(a) | Comenout sought relief against Whitener without joining the Nation; argued his claims did not require the Nation's presence | Whitener/district court argued all claims implicated the Nation's interest in the lease, making the Nation necessary | The Nation is a necessary party because complete relief cannot be afforded without it (Rule 19(a)) |
| Whether the Nation could be joined given sovereign immunity | Comenout contended joinder (or suing tribal officials) could permit his claims to proceed | The Nation (and district court) argued the Nation has not waived sovereign immunity and Congress has not abrogated it, so joinder is infeasible | Nation cannot be joined — tribal sovereign immunity bars suit in federal court absent waiver or abrogation |
| Whether the suit must be dismissed because the Nation is indispensable under Rule 19(b) | Comenout argued the case could proceed or be shaped to minimize prejudice to the Nation | District court argued the Nation would be prejudiced and relief could not be fashioned to avoid that prejudice | Court affirmed: Nation is indispensable; proceeding in its absence would be prejudicial and dismissal is appropriate |
| Whether denial of reconsideration and leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Comenout argued his proposed amended complaint (naming tribal officials) cured joinder problems and sought prospective relief | District court held the amendment did not cure failure to join the Nation as indispensable and sovereign immunity issues remained | Denial affirmed: proposed amendment did not cure the Rule 19 joinder problem; dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.) (standards for review and tribal official immunity in some prospective-relief claims)
- Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 19/joiner issues)
- Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.) (de novo review for tribal sovereign immunity questions)
- Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.) (analysis of complete relief and necessary party under Rule 19)
- Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (tribal sovereign immunity principles: waiver/abrogation required)
- Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt, 18 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir.) (recognition of tribal interest in sovereign immunity)
- Keith v. Volpe, 118 F.3d 1386 (9th Cir.) (principle that an appellant must have been a party in the district court to pursue appeal)