Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. v. Larance
642 F.3d 802
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- CRIT and Water Wheel entered a 32-year lease of tribal land within the CRIT reservation for a marina, store, bar, and camping facilities.
- Robert Johnson, a non-Indian, purchased Water Wheel stock in 1981 and 1985, becoming president and sole operator on CRIT land.
- Water Wheel stopped paying rent when renegotiation failed in 2000 and ceased paying a percentage of gross receipts from 2001 onward.
- Upon lease expiration in 2007, Water Wheel and Johnson refused to vacate; the CRIT tribal court sued for eviction, unpaid rent, damages, and fees.
- The tribal court ruled Water Wheel liable and pierced the corporate veil to hold Johnson personally liable; the tribal court of appeals affirmed.
- The district court later deemed Montana inapplicable and held the tribe had both regulatory and adjudicative jurisdiction; the Ninth Circuit reviews jurisdictional questions de novo with deference to tribal courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of tribal authority over non-Indians on tribal land | Water Wheel/Johnson argue Montana limits tribal power | CRIT/US contend inherent regulatory authority via exclusion extends to regulation | CRIT has regulatory jurisdiction over non-Indians on tribal land independent of Montana |
| Adjudicative jurisdiction when regulatory authority exists | Montana-based limits apply to adjudicative authority | Adjudicative jurisdiction may accompany regulatory jurisdiction where necessary | CRIT also has adjudicative jurisdiction over Water Wheel and Johnson |
| Personal jurisdiction over Johnson | Johnson’s acts were on Water Wheel’s behalf | Consent or lack thereof governs jurisdiction | CRIT tribal court has personal jurisdiction over Johnson |
| Montana applicability to Johnson’s breach and trespass claims | Montana first/second exceptions apply based on consensual relation and economic interest | Montana should limit jurisdiction; district court erred in leveraging Montana | Montana does not apply to tribal land here; tribal court jurisdiction remains valid; adjudicative/regulatory authority supported |
| Relation between exclusion power and regulatory/adjudicative jurisdiction | Exclusion suffices for jurisdiction on tribal land | Montana framework controls jurisdictional reach on non-Indian land | Tribal exclusion power includes regulatory jurisdiction; adjudicative jurisdiction follows |
Key Cases Cited
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) (two exceptions to tribal power over non-Indians on reservation land; Montana framework governs jurisdiction on non-Indian land)
- Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) (tribal adjudicative authority may not exceed regulatory authority; governs limits of tribal power)
- Hicks v. United States, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (land ownership may be dispositive; narrow scope; limits on regulatory jurisdiction when state interests dominate (off-reservation))
- Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008) (land status affects plenary tribal jurisdiction; permits regulation on tribal land; confirms tribal self-government interests)
- Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982) (inherent authority to exclude; regulations flow from exclusion; tax/entry conditions without Montana on tribal land)
- United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) (recognizes tribal sovereignty and regulatory authority over territory and resources)
- Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 462 U.S. 324 (1983) (tribal sovereignty; land management and exclusionary power)
- Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001) (taxing on fee lands; Montana considerations; tribal powers in context of non-Indian land)