Tonasket v. Sargent
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130487
E.D. Wash.2011Background
- This case concerns Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint challenging the 2009 Cigarette Tax Compact between Tribes and Washington.
- Plaintiffs allege the Compact effects illegal price fixing, antitrust, and unfair competition under Sherman and Clayton Acts.
- Defendants move under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7), arguing tribal sovereign immunity and lack of indispensable party.
- Court addresses sovereign immunity, Rule 19 indispensable party analysis, and jurisdictional barriers.
- Court ultimately dismisses for tribal sovereign immunity—absence of waiver or abrogation—and not for merits of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars suit in federal court | Plaintiffs argue immunity may be waived by the Compact or Donovan exception | Tribal sovereign immunity is not waived absent congressional abrogation or explicit waiver | Yes; immunity bars suit (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction) |
| Whether Washington State is an indispensable party under Rule 19 | State interests shown; joinder not necessary | State cannot be joined due to Eleventh Amendment and would affect the Compact | State indispensable not reached; court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction due to immunity |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7) | Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate antitrust/price-fixing claims | Sovereign immunity deprives court of jurisdiction | Jurisdiction lacking; case dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to join a necessary party | Not essential to challenge the Compact as a whole | Indispensable party rule requires State participation | Not separately reached; resolved via immunity ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal sovereign immunity generally; waivers required for suit)
- United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986) (immunity applies to tribal officials acting within authority)
- P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (immunity is an immunity from suit; lost if case goes to trial)
- Hardin v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 779 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1985) (tribal immunity extends to official capacity actions)
- Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2008) (tribal immunity covers governmental and commercial activities)
- Donovan v. Coeur d'Alene Tribal Farm, 751 F.2d 1113 (9th Cir. 1985) (governmental/general applicability exceptions cited by plaintiffs)
- Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) (indispensable party considerations in contract contexts)
- Bowen v. United States, 172 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 19 analysis framework for indispensable parties)