Ford Motor Co. v. Todecheene Ex Rel. Todecheene

474 F.3d 1196 | 9th Cir. | 2007

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT F ORD M OTOR C OMPANY , Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

J OE R. T ODECHEENE , as the surviving natural parent of Esther Todecheene, deceased; M ARY

No. 02-17048 T ODECHEENE , as the surviving D.C. No. natural parent of Esther CV-02-01100-PGR Todecheene, deceased, Defendants-Appellants, and N AVAJO N ATION D ISTRICT C OURT ; L EROY S. B EDONIE , The Honorable,

Defendants. 1161 1162 F ORD M OTOR C O . v. T ODECHEENE F ORD M OTOR C OMPANY ,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

J OE R. T ODECHEENE , as the surviving natural parent of Esther

No. 02-17165 Todecheene, deceased; M ARY T ODECHEENE , as the surviving D.C. No. natural parent of Esther CV-02-01100-PGR Todecheene, deceased,

ORDER

Defendants, and N AVAJO N ATION D ISTRICT C OURT ; L EROY S. B EDONIE , The Honorable,

Defendants-Appellants. Filed February 1, 2007 Before: Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Joe and Mary Todecheene’s Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED in part. The opinion in this case, Ford Motor Company v. Todech- eene , 394 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) is WITHDRAWN. Because our en banc opinion in Smith v. Kootenai College , 434 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2006), did not resolve the jurisdiction issue presented in this case, we cannot say that the tribal courts in this case plainly lack jurisdiction over the dispute

F ORD M OTOR C O . v. T ODECHEENE 1163 among Ford Motor Company, the Todecheenes and the Nav- ajo Nation. See Boozer v. Wilder , 381 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring exhaustion unless the tribal courts plainly lack jurisdiction). Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court with instructions that the district court stay pro- ceedings in this matter pending exhaustion of available pro- ceedings in the tribal courts, including appellate review. See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante , 480 U.S. 9, 16 (1987). (“[T]he federal policy supporting tribal self-government directs a federal court to stay its hand in order to give the tribal court a full opportunity to determine its own jurisdic- tion.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Joe and Mary Todecheene and the Navajo Nation are DENIED as moot. The panel retains jurisdiction over any further appeals in this case. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2007 Thomson/West.