637 F.3d 1033
9th Cir.2011Background
- Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. appeals district court orders denying its motion for summary judgment and reconsideration, and granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to dismiss.
- The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and addresses the case on appeal.
- A separate opinion discusses whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs was the Lessor under the Lease; the panel affirms on other issues.
- Wapato failed to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the 99-year Replacement Lease.
- The BIA provided rational reasons for not approving the Replacement Lease, including lack of landowner consent and environmental concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was administrative exhaustion satisfied? | Wapato contends remedies were exhausted or should be excused. | Wapato did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. | Exhaustion not met; district court affirmed denial. |
| Did BIA owe fiduciary duties to Wapato? | Wapato asserts fiduciary duties by BIA to it. | Wapato is not a Native entity; no fiduciary duties attach. | No fiduciary duties owed to Wapato. |
| Are Landowners necessary parties under Rules 17/19? | Wapato argues Landowners should be joined as necessary parties. | No necessity shown; district court acted within discretion. | District court did not abuse discretion; no required joinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration)
- Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1988) (new arguments control admissibility at summary judgment)
- Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (considerations of evidence when evaluating summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Babbitt, 230 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2000) (futility of administrative remedies and bias evidence)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (BIA fiduciary relationship limitations; tribal status required)
- Faras v. Hodel, 845 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1988) (exhaustion requirement before suit)