913 F.3d 1116
9th Cir.2019Background
- In 2005 the Stillaguamish Tribe’s Environmental Manager entered an agreement with Washington that included an indemnification clause obligating the Tribe to indemnify and defend the State for claims arising from the Tribe’s performance.
- After a landslide allegedly related to the revetment, victims sued and Washington indicated it would seek indemnification from the Tribe both during litigation and after settlement.
- To preempt an indemnification claim, the Tribe filed a federal declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that tribal sovereign immunity would bar Washington’s suit for indemnification.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Tribe, agreeing that sovereign immunity barred indemnification claims.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed subject matter jurisdiction de novo and considered whether the Tribe’s federal declaratory action satisfied the well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for Tribe’s declaratory suit asserting sovereign immunity | Tribe: sovereign immunity is a federal common-law question, so declaratory relief presents a federal question | Washington: Tribe’s immunity is a federal defense to state-law claims and does not create federal-question jurisdiction | No jurisdiction: a federal immunity defense cannot form the basis for original federal jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule |
| Whether a declaratory action to preempt a threatened state suit converts a defensive federal issue into a federal claim | Tribe: declaratory judgment can resolve a federal immunity question before state suit | Washington: declaratory action that essentially asserts a defense does not alter character of threatened state action | No: courts apply character of threatened action; defensive federal issues do not confer federal jurisdiction |
| Applicability of Shaw (preemption suits) to this case | Tribe: relied on Shaw for federal-question jurisdiction where federal law displaces state regulation | Washington: Shaw concerns plaintiff seeking relief based on federal preemption, not a defensive assertion of federal law | Shaw inapplicable: case involves preemption claims, not defensive immunity actions |
| Whether precedents supporting jurisdiction apply (e.g., cases involving ongoing state action or federal-law claims) | Tribe: cited related tribal cases | Washington: those precedents involve federal claims or ongoing state enforcement actions, not defensive anticipatory suits | Court: distinguished those cases; jurisdictional precedents not applicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., LLC v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional rulings reviewed de novo)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
- Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) (a defense based on federal law does not create federal jurisdiction)
- Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, 832 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2016) (tribal immunity defense does not independently confer federal jurisdiction)
- Atay v. County of Maui, 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016) (declaratory suits that are essentially defensive are evaluated by character of threatened action)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014) (character of threatened action controls federal-question analysis for declaratory suits)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal sovereign immunity is federal common law)
- Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838 (1989) (tribal immunity is a federal defense and does not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (plaintiffs seeking relief based on federal preemption present federal questions)
- Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, 863 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinguishable: involved ongoing state actions challenging tribal authority)
- Sac & Fox Nation v. Hanson, 47 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 1995) (distinguishable: state suit itself involved federal law)