Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
201 Cal. App. 4th 190
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- YAN sues Nation in California for breach of loan agreement and related guaranty; Nation moved to quash service citing tribal sovereign immunity.
- Fourth amendment to the loan agreement purported to waive immunity and grant California jurisdiction; Nation argues no authority to waive.
- Nation previously enacted legislation authorizing waivers of immunity for earlier amendments; validity of fourth amendment waiver is disputed.
- Nation also faced related Arizona litigation over the loan guaranty; dispute about whether waiver covers guaranty issues.
- Trial court granted the motion to quash; on appeal, court must decide if California jurisdiction exists under tribal authorization and contract language.
- Appellate court reverses, holding the fourth amendment, read with prior authorizations, effectively permits California jurisdiction over loan agreement disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California jurisdiction exists over loan‑agreement disputes. | YAN argues the fourth amendment authorized a valid waiver. | Nation contends no proper tribal authorization for the waiver. | Yes; jurisdiction exists under fourth amendment read with prior authorizations. |
| Did the chairman have authority to waive sovereign immunity for the fourth amendment? | YAN asserts authority via LB-07-08 and tribal customs. | Nation contends authority was not clearly granted for the waiver. | Authority present when read with legislative authorizations; waiver effective. |
| Do the enabling tribal resolutions authorize waivers for the fourth amendment separately from prior waivers? | YAN relies on cumulative legislative authorizations. | Nation argues ambiguity and reliance on earlier resolutions. | Waivers remain consistent with earlier authorizations; no retracting of immunity. |
| Does the loan guaranty scope affect California jurisdiction for loan‑agreement disputes? | YAN seeks California jurisdiction over loan‑agreement disputes, not guaranty litigation. | Nation asserts guaranty issues are being litigated elsewhere and not covered. | Guaranty issues do not defeat the California jurisdiction for loan‑agreement disputes. |
Key Cases Cited
- C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (clear, express waiver required but words not magic; scope matters)
- Warburton/Buttner v. Superior Court, 103 Cal.App.4th 1170 (Cal. App. 2002) (waivers must be authorized and clear; multiple contexts described)
- Smith v. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, 95 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2002) (contractual waivers can be enough when properly approved by tribal authority)
- Hydrothermal Energy Corp. v. Fort Bidwell Indian Community Council, 170 Cal.App.3d 489 (Cal. App. 1985) (tribal chair’t must be authorized to waive immunity; lack of delegation defeats waiver)
- World Touch Gaming v. Massena Management, LLC, 117 F.Supp.2d 271 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (tribal authority to waive immunity must be explicit; management/control cannot substitute for council authorization)
- Great Western Casinos, Inc. v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 74 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. App. 1999) (pretrial factual/legal determinations may support jurisdiction over sovereign immunity questions)