The Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley v. Salazar
5:09-cv-02502
N.D. Cal.Mar 23, 2015Background
- The Alexander Valley Rancheria (54 acres in Sonoma County) was purchased by the United States (1908, 1913) for California Indians and later subject to termination under the California Rancheria Act (CRA) of 1958.
- BIA prepared and approved a distribution plan in 1959 after consultation; a referendum approving the plan was held and deeds transferring property were recorded in February–March 1961.
- Formal notice of termination and distribution was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1961.
- Plaintiff Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley filed suit in 2009 asserting breach of fiduciary duty, APA claims (unlawful/ delayed agency action, arbitrary and capricious), and possessory-rights claims challenging the 1959–1961 termination process as contrary to the CRA.
- The Federal Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing all claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a); the court found accrual occurred no later than 1961 and granted summary judgment for the Government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (accrual date) | Claims depend on later harms (e.g., exclusion from tribal lists) so accrual occurred later; lack of notice to Tribe delayed accrual | All claims arise from the 1959–1961 termination process; accrual occurred by publication/recording in 1961, so suit filed in 2009 is untimely | Claims accrued no later than 1961; § 2401(a) bars the action — summary judgment for Government |
| Whether Federal Register notice or lack of direct notice to tribal members prevents accrual | Failure to seek out and notify Plaintiff’s members meant they could not know of the injury, so limitations should not run | Publication in the Federal Register constitutes legally sufficient notice regardless of actual knowledge | Federal Register publication (Aug. 1, 1961) provided constructive notice; lack of actual notice does not prevent accrual |
| Whether a continuing fiduciary duty prevented the limitations period from running | Government’s fiduciary relationship persisted and therefore the limitations period was tolled until repudiation | The claims challenge the rancheria distribution (individual-status harms), not a continuing tribal-recognition fiduciary duty; CRA effects are discrete and knowable in 1961 | Distinction upheld: CRA terminated individual benefits, not tribal status; continuing fiduciary-duty tolling does not apply to these claims |
| Whether equitable tolling or continuing-violation doctrines save Plaintiff’s claims | Plaintiff points to post-1961 government statements and administrative interactions (e.g., Tillie Hardwick developments) to justify tolling | Plaintiff did not diligently pursue rights between 1961–1979 nor identify extraordinary circumstances; continuing-violation doctrine inapplicable to APA claims | Equitable tolling denied (lack of diligence and extraordinary circumstances); continuing-violation doctrine not available for these APA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (statute of limitations is a waiver-term to be construed within scope of congressional intent)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (accrual occurs when plaintiff knows critical facts of injury and who inflicted it)
- Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710 (distinction: substantive ultra vires claims may accrue when applied to plaintiff; procedural claims differ)
- Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573 (shared accrual date for claims arising from same factual predicate)
- Shiny Rock Mining Corp. v. United States, 906 F.2d 1362 (Federal Register publication gives legally sufficient notice regardless of actual knowledge)
- Friends of Sierra R.R., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 881 F.2d 663 (publication constitutes adequate notice to affected persons)