United States Ex Rel. Cain v. Salish Kootenai College, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12262
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Qui tam relators (former employees) sued Salish Kootenai College (the College), its Foundation, and board members under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging false progress reports to obtain federal grant funds from HHS/IHS.
- The United States declined intervention; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, asserting tribal sovereign immunity.
- The district court dismissed the College and Foundation with prejudice, holding the College was an arm of the Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes (the Tribe) and thus immune; it dismissed the Foundation on the merits and held board members were sued in official capacities.
- Plaintiffs appealed only the portion dismissing the College; they conceded the Foundation and official-capacity claims need not be reviewed.
- The Ninth Circuit framed the threshold question as whether the College is a “person” under the FCA (and thus subject to suit) and whether it is an arm of the Tribe sharing sovereign immunity.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded tribes are presumptively excluded from the FCA’s term “person” and remanded for factual factfinding under the multi-factor “arm-of-the-tribe” test to determine whether the College shares tribal immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Indian tribe is a “person” under the FCA | FCA is generally applicable and should cover tribes | Tribes are sovereigns and presumptively not "persons" for FCA purposes | Tribe is not a “person” under the FCA; presumption excludes tribes absent affirmative congressional intent |
| Whether the College is an arm of the Tribe and thus shares tribal immunity | College is not a sovereign arm; subject to FCA liability | College is an arm of the Tribe and immune from FCA suit | Not decided on the merits; remanded for factfinding under White factors to determine arm-of-tribe status |
| Proper legal test to determine arm-of-tribe status | Apply state "arm-of-the-state" tests (Stoner) or treat FCA context differently | Apply tribe-specific multi-factor test (White) evaluating creation, purpose, control, intent to share immunity, finances | Use White factors (method of creation; purpose; structure/control; tribal intent to share immunity; financial relationship) and permit discovery on those factors |
| Whether district court properly denied jurisdictional discovery | Discovery unnecessary because Smith controlled outcome | Additional discovery necessary for White-factor analysis | District court erred in denying appropriate discovery; remand to allow discovery relevant to White factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermont Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (interpreting “person” in FCA and presuming sovereigns excluded)
- Cook County v. U.S. ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (municipalities treated as persons under FCA where suing/being sued supports inclusion)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (recognizing tribal sovereign immunity)
- Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians, 538 U.S. 701 (tribal status and limits on suing tribes in § 1983 context)
- White v. Univ. of Cal., 765 F.3d 1010 (Ninth Circuit multi-factor test for whether entity is an arm of a tribe)
- Smith v. Salish Kootenai Coll., 434 F.3d 1127 (en banc Ninth Circuit; addressed tribal court jurisdiction over the College)
- Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116 (arm-of-state analysis applied in FCA context)