OPINION
{1} In this case, certified from the Court of Appeals pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 34-5-14(C)(2) (1972), we confront two issues presented in two cases consolidated by the Court of Appeals prior to certification. First, we are asked whether federal or state law, or the terms of the 1995 or 1997 Compacts, provide the state court with subject matter jurisdiction over an action in tort brought by a non-Indian against an Indian tribe, when the non-Indian was allegedly injured at the tribe’s gaming facility and no gaming compact was legally in effect. Second, we are asked to decide whether the Pueblo of Tesuque (“Tesuque”) is an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 1-019-NMRA-2002 in an action against Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), Tesuque’s insurance carrier, for breach of contract for failure to pay medical payments, breach of contract for raising a sovereign immunity defense, insurance bad faith, and unfair practices under the New Mexico Trade Practices and Fraud Act, NMSA 1978, § 59A-16-1 to-30 (1984, as amended through 2001). Given the unique circumstances of this case, we confine the application of our analysis to these facts. We hold that (1) the dismissal of Lisa Gallegos’ (“Gallegos”) complaint was proper as Tesuque had not expressly and unequivocally waived its immunity from suit or consented to state court jurisdiction through a compact or other form, and (2) Tesuque is an indispensable party in this suit against its insurance carrier.
{2} Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint against Tesuque for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint against Zurich for failure to join an indispensable party.
I.
{3} On October 28, 1996, Gallegos was a visitor at the Camel Rock Gaming Center (“Casino”) located on the Pueblo of Tesuque Indian reservation. As Gallegos was entering the walkway from the parking lot, a sudden gust of wind blew a garbage container into her, knocking her down. As a result of this incident, Gallegos allegedly suffered severe contusions and injuries, including a displaced fracture of her right elbow. At the time of the incident, Tesuque, which owned and operated the Casino, had an insurance policy in effect with Zurich. As a result of her injuries, Gallegos asserts that she incurred substantial medical expenses. She reported over $20,000 in such expenses to Zurich, which paid a small portion and then discontinued payment.
{4} On December 11,1997, Gallegos filed a lawsuit in a New Mexico district court against Tesuque and other defendants to recover for the personal injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of the October 28, 1996 incident. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting that Gallegos’ lawsuit fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribal court and that the state court lacked jurisdiction over it as Tesuque is immune from suit in state court. On August 3, 1998, the district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint as to Tesuque, orally finding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the action because no compact covered the date of the incident and Tesuque had not waived its sovereign immunity. The court dismissed the complaint as to the other defendants without prejudice to Gallegos’ right to file an amended complaint. Gallegos appealed the district court’s order as to Tesuque to the Court of Appeals.
{5} On October 26, 1998, Gallegos filed a separate lawsuit against Zurich and several other defendants. She alleged breach of contract for failure to pay medical payments, breach of contract for raising a sovereign immunity defense, insurance bad faith, and unfair practices under the New Mexico Trade Practices and Fraud Act against Zurich. After filing an answer, Zurich filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 1-019. Zurich claimed that Gallegos was seeking to recover damages for Tesuque’s alleged liability, and, thus, Tesuque was an indispensable party. Zurich argued that, since sovereign immunity precluded joinder of Tesuque in an action in state court, the action against Zurich must be dismissed. The district court dismissed Zurich from the lawsuit. Gallegos appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals recognized that any ruling in this case “involve[d] a significant issue of intersovereign law and substantial public interest concerning personal injuries suffered by patrons of our State’s tribal-run casinos after the invalidation of the original 1995 Gaming Compacts, ... but prior to the effective date of the Compacts enacted in 1997,” and, thus, sought certification to this Court.
II.
{6} We first address the issue of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claim brought by Gallegos against Tesuque. In reviewing an appeal from an order granting or denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the determination of whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law which an appellate court reviews de novo. See Barnae v. Barnae,
{7} Tesuque argues that it is immune from suit in state court and that the district court properly dismissed the action brought by Gallegos on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and tribal sovereign immunity. We agree. “Indian tribes are ‘domestic dependent nations’ that exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories.” Okla. Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla.,
{8} Gallegos was allegedly injured on Tesuque’s reservation while she was patronizing Tesuque’s gaming facility. As gaming on tribal lands is governed by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 (1994 & Supp. V 1999), we must determine what, if any, effect the provisions of the IGRA have on this case and Gallegos’ claims.
A.
{9} Before the passage of the IGRA, Congress found that “numerous Indian tribes [had] become engaged in or [had] licensed gaming activities on Indian lands as a means of generating tribal government revenue.” 25 U.S.C. § 2701(1) (1994). Existing federal law, however, did not “provide clear standards or regulations for the conduct of gaming on Indian lands.” 25 U.S.C. § 2701(3) (1994). Accordingly, in 1988, Congress passed the IGRA which provided “a ‘comprehensive regulatory framework for gaming activities on Indian lands’ which ‘[sought] to balance the interests of tribal governments, the states, and the federal government.’ ” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Kelly,
{10} In the IGRA, “Congress attempted to strike a balance between the rights of tribes as sovereigns and the interests that states may have in regulating sophisticated forms of gambling.” State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson,
{11} Gallegos claims that Tesuque waived its sovereign immunity and consented to be sued in a New Mexico court under either the 1995 or 1997 Compact. This case poses a unique issue because, at the time Gallegos sustained her claimed injuries on October 28, 1996, neither the 1995 nor the 1997 Compact was in effect. Nevertheless, Gallegos asserts that by entering into these compacts and conforming to their mandates, Tesuque waived its tribal immunity, thereby giving subject matter jurisdiction over this case to a New Mexico court. We review Gallegos’ arguments under both the 1995 and 1997 Compacts, respectively.
B.
{12} In 1995, the Tribes and the Governor of New Mexico negotiated to enter into tribal-state compacts permitting Class III gaming. See Clark,
{13} The validity of the 1995 Compacts, including the Tesuque Compact, was challenged in Clark on the ground that “the Governor of New Mexico lacked the authority to commit New Mexico to these compacts and agreements, because he attempted to exercise legislative authority contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers expressed in the state Constitution.”
{14} Although the 1995 Compacts were described as without legal effect by this Court prior to Gallegos’ alleged injury on October 28, 1996, Gallegos maintains that Tesuque’s waiver of immunity in the 1995 Compact survived. She makes two arguments to support this contention. First, Gallegos asserts that the 1995 Compact remained in effect pursuant to a federal court’s stay of its judgment pending appeal in a collateral case. Second, she argues that Tesuque should be estopped from asserting that the 1995 Compact was not in effect on October 28, 1996, since Tesuque continued gaming activities, continued hosting patrons, and maintained an insurance policy in conformity with the compact. We do not agree with Gallegos’ arguments and hold that the 1995 Compact was not in effect in any manner at the time that Gallegos allegedly sustained her injuries. Therefore, any waiver of immunity or jurisdiction-shifting provision within the compact would not cover this claim.
i.
{15} Gallegos first asserts that the Tesuque Compact and its provisions were in effect at the time of her injury pursuant to a stay entered by the federal district court in a collateral case decided subsequent to this Court’s decision in Clark. To fully understand Gallegos’ argument in this regard, we must briefly review and analyze the history of Indian gaming in New Mexico and the procedural posture of Kelly I and Kelly II. Although the IGRA required a tribal-state compact in order for tribes to lawfully conduct Class III gaming, Tesuque began to conduct some form of Class III gaming on its reservation absent a compact in 1992. See Kelly II,
{16} After Clark, the Tribes continued to participate in Class III gaming. See Kelly I,
{17} On July 12, 1996, the federal district court also declared the 1995 Compacts void. Kelly I,
{18} The Tribes, including Tesuque, promptly filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking review of the district court’s decision, and a motion requesting a stay of the judgment pending appeal in the Tenth Circuit Court of. Appeals. The district court granted the stay pending appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). The district court recognized that Rule 62(c) applies solely to injunctions and does not generally apply to declaratory judgments but concluded that a declaratory judgment combined with the court-approved Stipulation in this ease had the practical effect of granting injunctive relief. See Samuels v. Mackell,
{19} The stay was in effect on October 28, 1996 when Gallegos allegedly sustained her injuries. We do not agree that the federal district court’s stay revived the 1995 Compact and, consequently, its waiver and jurisdictional provisions. The Stipulation of the parties defined the scope of the stay, as it was the combination of the Stipulation and the declaratory judgment that permitted the granting of the stay. See Shay v. Agric. Stabilization & Conserv. State Comm. for Ariz.,
{20} We conclude that the federal courts addressed issues related but collateral to our decision in Clark. In Kelly I and Kelly II, the federal courts addressed the United States Attorney’s threat to prosecute for illegal gaming under the IGRA and, as their opinions make clear, the specific question of the role of state law under the IGRA in determining the validity of a gaming compact. In addressing that question, the federal appellate court concluded that “[sjtate law must determine whether a state has validly bound itself to a compact.” Kelly II,
{21} We agree with the federal courts that as a result of Clark and Kelly I and II, the compacts have been held void from their inception. In view of these holdings, we also conclude that there never was a valid waiver of immunity nor an agreement to transfer jurisdiction to state court. 4
ii.
{22} Alternatively, Gallegos contends that Tesuque should be estopped from asserting its sovereign immunity and the state court’s lack of jurisdiction and held to the provisions of the 1995 Compact, because it continued to do business under the federal stay without a compact in place. Although Gallegos fails to address in her brief-in-chief what type of estoppel she wants this Court to apply, the basis of her argument is that, under the federal stay, “by accepting and retaining the benefits of illegal gaming activity, [Tesuque] thereby waived and is estopped from asserting [sovereign immunity].” We are not persuaded by this argument.
{23} There are two types of estoppel potentially'applicable in this case: judicial and equitable. Judicial estoppel prohibits a party from maintaining inconsistent positions in legal proceedings. Thus, “[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him.” Citizens Bank v. C & H Constr. & Paving Co., Inc.,
{24} Equitable estoppel is equally inapplicable in this case. Equitable estoppel “precludes a litigant from asserting a claim or defense that might otherwise be available to him against another party who has detrimentally altered his [or her] position in reliance on the former’s misrepresentation or failure to disclose some material fact.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Harrison,
{25} Gallegos requests that this Court estop Tesuque from asserting sovereign immunity and lack of state court jurisdiction based on Tesuque’s continued operation of the casino under the federal stay. However, Gallegos fails to enumerate any overt representations made by Tesuque, beyond its mere operation of business pursuant to the federal stay. Gallegos sets forth no allegations that she detrimentally relied on the 1995 Compact’s validity either in her decision to gamble at the Casino or to file her personal injury suit against Tesuque. See, e.g., Padilla v. Pueblo of Acoma,
{26} Gallegos does assert in her reply brief on appeal that she relied, generally, on the insurance to protect her and “in that reliance she relied on each and every representation the Pueblo made in order that such insurance be there.” Gallegos does not argue that the purchase of the insurance policy itself operated as a waiver of sovereign immunity; nor does she argue that the maintenance of insurance operated as a misrepresentation by Tesuque. See Atkinson v. Haldane,
{27} Gallegos urges us to look to Tesuque’s gaming activities solely as a commercial venture in our review of her arguments. Some courts have examined the type of activity engaged in by the government as an element in their analysis and permitted equitable estoppel when the activity was proprietary or commercial. See Harrison,
{28} We are not persuaded that the sole fact that Tesuque was operating a casino is reason enough to set aside the basic canons of tribal sovereignty and estop Tesuque from asserting its immunity. To apply equitable estoppel in this case against a tribe is to, in effect, imply a waiver of its sovereign immunity. See Padilla,
C.
{29} In the alternative, Gallegos argues that the 1997 Compact operates retroactively such that it covers her claim and allows her to bring suit against Tesuque in state court. Gallegos contends that, even though she sustained her injury prior to the effective date of the 1997 Compact and filed suit after it became effective, she still enjoys the benefit of the Compact’s Section 8 jurisdiction-shifting provision and waiver of sovereign immunity, as she is “in the class of intended beneficiaries” of the compact and the contract entered by Tesuque. She argues that “[S]ection 8 provides gaming patrons important rights and remedies that cannot be whisked away without offending the Compact, ... [and the IGRA].” 6 Although Gallegos concentrates her assertions on the validity of the jurisdiction-shifting provision contained in Section 8, the issue here is whether Gallegos’ claims fall within the scope of the 1997 Compact. Gallegos cites no authority for the proposition that compacts of this nature operate retroactively to encompass claims that arise before their effective date, nor does she cite authority that under either traditional contract or statutory canons of construction a compact can be applied retroactively. We are not persuaded.
{30} The 1997 Compact is a contract between the State of New Mexico and Tesuque, codified by the Legislature. See § 11-13-1; Texas v. New Mexico,
{31} The express language of the 1997 Compact is unambiguous. See Vickers v. N. Am. Land Devs., Inc.,
This Compact shall be effective immediately upon the occurrence of the last of the following:
A. execution by the Tribe’s Governor after approval of the Tribal Council;
B. execution by the Governor of the State;
C. approval by the Secretary of the Interior; and
D. publication in the Federal Register.
Section 11-13-1(9). Additionally, Section 11 provides that the “Compact shall be binding upon the State and Tribe for a term of nine (9) years from the date it becomes effective.” Section 11-13-1(11) (emphasis added). According to its own terms, the 1997 Compact became effective on August 29, 1997 upon publication of notice in the Federal Register, see 62 Fed.Reg. 45,867 (Aug. 29, 1997), and, on that date, its provisions became “binding upon the State and Tribe.” Section 11-13-1(11). Thus, according to the express terms of the compact, it was not in effect in October 1996 when Gallegos’ claim arose.
{32} Moreover, the compact is silent as to any retroactive application. We will not imply from this silence such a provision as it is not evident that retroactive application was within the contemplation of the State and Tribe upon making this agreement. See Ponder,
{33} Even if we viewed the 1997 Compact as a statute, the general rulé is that statutes apply prospectively unless the Legislature manifests clear intent to the contrary. “[W]hen a statute affects vested or substantive rights, it is presumed to operate prospectively only.” Swink v. Fingado,
{34} Retroactive application of the 1997 Compact is not appropriate here. “The principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal human appeal.” Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno,
{35} Moreover, as discussed above, the plain language of the 1997 Compact delineates its effective dates and duration. Nothing in its terms evinces an intent that its provisions be applied retroactively. See id. at 279,
D.
{36} No one disputes that the parties to the gaming compacts sought to ensure a forum and compensation for those injured at the tribal casinos. However, in this case, neither compact covered the date of Gallegos’ alleged injury at Tesuque’s casino. Thus, we conclude that neither the 1995 nor the 1997 Compact provides jurisdiction over Tesuque in state court for Gallegos’ cause of action. As such, Tesuque’s sovereign immunity precludes suit in state court as no waiver of its immunity will be implied under these circumstances. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Gallegos’ complaint against Tesuque for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in state court.
III.
{37} We next address whether Tesuque is an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 1-019 NMRA 2002 in an action by Gallegos against Zurich, Tesuque’s insurance carrier. Gallegos argues that, first, Tesuque is not an indispensable party as Zurich has failed to make the requisite showing of an impact on Tesuque’s economic interests and, secondly, that Zurich has direct duties to Gallegos pursuant to the insurance contract between Zurich and Tesuque that do not implicate Tesuque’s interests in this suit. We do not agree and conclude that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Tesuque as a tribe is an indispensable party in this cause of action against its insurance carrier and dismissal is appropriate. 7
{38} Gallegos’ complaint against Zurich alleged breach of contract for failure to pay medical payments, breach of contract for asserting sovereign immunity, insurance bad faith, and unfair practices under the Trade Practices and Fraud Act. The complaint also alleged that Gallegos had a claim of liability arising from the negligent conduct of Tesuque and its “gaming enterprise,” which was covered by Tesuque’s insurance policy in force and effect at the time of the incident. Zurich admitted in its answer that it had issued a commercial general liability policy to Tesuque, under which it had paid some of Gallegos’ claimed expenses. Zurich pleaded Rule 1-019 as an affirmative defense and, consequently, made a motion to dismiss based on Gallegos’ failure to join Tesuque as an indispensable party, which the district court granted. The district court made no formal written findings of fact or conclusions of law but stated at the motion hearing that Tesuque’s interests were implicated in the lawsuit and that the insurance contract between Zurich and Tesuque necessitated joinder.
{39} Rule 1-019 sets out a three-part analysis by which the court determines which parties are “needed for just adjudication” in any lawsuit. First, the court must determine if the questioned party is necessary to the litigation. See Rule 1-019(A). Second, if that party is deemed necessary, the court must then determine if joinder is possible. Third and finally, if the party cannot be joined, the court decides whether “in equity and good conscience” that party is indispensable to the litigation. Rule 1-019(B). If the party is indispensable, the court dismisses the ease for nonjoinder. Id. “The question of indispensability is a factual question that the district court determines, and the district court decides, in its discretion, whether the suit can continue without a specific party.” Srader,
{40} On appeal, Gallegos argues the district court abused its discretion in determining that Tesuque was a necessary party, because Zurich did not “establish that as a factual matter, the Pueblo of Tesuque’s economic interests might be implicated by any relief the court could fashion.” Additionally, Gallegos contends that, since she only seeks money damages from Zurich “for its own bad practices” and not from Tesuque, its interests, if any, arising from the insurance contract with Zurich are not implicated. See United States ex rel. Steele v. Turn Key Gaming, Inc.,
{41} Zurich counters that it only has a duty to Tesuque to pay those sums for which Tesuque becomes “legally obligated” through judgment or settlement, and thus it has no duty to Gallegos. Moreover, Zurich argues that Tesuque as a tribe has an interest in defending any claim against it and its insurance policy, an interest it cannot protect if not a party to the litigation. Under the facts and the posture of this case, we agree.
A.
{42} We begin our analysis with the first section of Rule 1-019, which states in part:
A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if:
(1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties; or
(2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may:
(a) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; or
(b) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.
Rule 1-019(A). The determination that a party is necessary involves “a functional analysis of the effects of the person’s absence upon the existing parties, the absent person, and the judicial process itself.” Srader,
{43} It is the general rule in an action to void or set aside a contract that all the parties to the contract are indispensable to the litigation. Enter. Mgmt. Consultants,
{44} New Mexico has recognized in the past that contract interpretation as to language or performance necessitated the presence of the contracting parties. See State ex rel. Walker v. Hastings,
{45} Our conclusion that Tesuque is a necessary party is further supported by the fact that we cannot say that the interests of Zurich and Tesuque in this contract and this lawsuit are so identical as to preclude the necessity of Tesuque in this litigation. See Golden Oil Co. v. Chace Oil Co.,
{46} Moreover, the fact that Zurich cannot articulate the exact amount of Tesuque’s rate increase, if any, or other economic impact to Tesuque, is not fatal to Zurich’s claim, as Gallegos contends. The court may consider the “economic impact caused by disputes between non-Indian parties when analyzing the practical effects of permitting litigation without a tribe’s inclusion.” Srader,
{47} Most compelling, however, is that the party in question in this case is a tribe. Tesuque as a tribal entity has an interest in protecting its tribal resources and controlling their dissipation and allocation under its insurance contract. See Atkinson v. Haldane,
B.
{48} Once the court determines that a party is necessary, it evaluates whether anything precludes joinder of that party in the lawsuit. As discussed in the first section of this opinion, Tesuque is a tribal entity which enjoys sovereign immunity from suit in state court and thus cannot be joined absent an unequivocal and express waiver or the authorization of Congress. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez,
C.
{49} If the court concludes that a party should be joined if feasible but cannot be joined, as in this case, Rule 1-019(B) provides:
[T]he court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.
Thus, employing these enumerated, but nonexclusive, factors, the court must determine whether the litigation can proceed without the necessary party or must be dismissed, the necessary party being deemed “indispensable.” See State ex rel. Coll v. Johnson,
{50} The first factor for the court’s consideration is “to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties.” Rule 1 — 019(B): The analysis under this factor mirrors that of the “interest” inquiry of Rule 1-019(A). Srader,
{51} Finally, the Plaintiffs lack of remedy in state court, or the adequacy thereof, is not a factor to be considered in the indispensability analysis by the court where the necessary party is a tribal entity. Srader,
{52} Given the procedural posture of this ease and the parties involved, we cannot agree that the district court abused its discretion in its determination that Tesuque was an indispensable party under Rule 1-019, which necessitated the dismissal of Gallegos’ suit against Zurich in its entirety. Gallegos has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s decision was “clearly contrary to the logical conclusions demanded by the facts and circumstances of the case.” Sims,
IV.
{53} In conclusion, we affirm the dismissal of Gallegos’ complaint against Tesuque on the basis that Tesuque is a sovereign entity which had not expressly and unequivocally waived its immunity from suit in state court or consented to state court jurisdiction through a compact or otherwise. Furthermore, we affirm the dismissal of Gallegos’ complaint against Zurich, Tesuque’s insurance carrier, for failure to join Tesuque as an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 1-019 as Tesuque is a sovereign entity whose interests might be impeded or impaired if its obligations and rights under a contract to which it is a party were adjudicated in its absence.
{54} IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. The Act divides gaming into three categories. Class I gaming is comprised of "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations.” 25 U.S.C. § 2703(6) (1994). Class II gaming consists primarily of bingo but includes "pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo,” as long as those games are played at the same location as bingo. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A)(i) (1994). Last, Class III gaming is high-stakes, casino-style gaming, which includes " 'slot machines, casino games, banking card games, dog racing, and lotteries.’ ” Kelly II,
. The compact goes into "effect” when it is approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the notice is published in the Federal Register. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(B) (1994).
. Both Tesuque and Amici for Tesuque argue that the jurisdiction-shifting provisions themselves of the compacts are invalid and therefore do not confer jurisdiction on the state court. As we conclude that neither compact is applicable to Gallegos, we need not address these arguments.
. Gallegos also argues that because the compacts were declared invalid not for any substantive failings, but rather because the Governor lacked power under New Mexico law to ratify the agreements without approval from the Legislature, we should hold that the immunity waiver provisions of the 1995 Compact were in effect at the time of her alleged injury. However, Gallegos cites no authority to support her argument. The 1995 Compact has been determined to have been without legal effect from its inception or void, and the reasons for that determination do not provide a basis for distinguishing among its various provisions. Gallegos' argument seems to us a different way of contending that Tesuque has waived its immunity, a contention that we have answered in the preceding section, or that it should be estopped in asserting its immunity, a contention that we address in the following section.
. For example, a party asserting equitable estoppel against the federal government must demonstrate that: "(1) the government knew the facts; (2) the government intended its conduct to be acted upon or so acted that plaintiffs had the right to believe it was so intended; (3) plaintiffs must have been ignorant of the true facts; and (4) plaintiffs reasonably relied on the government's conduct to their injury.” Kelly I,
. "Section 8” is a reference to a portion of the Indian Gaming Compact enacted in 1997. It provides for a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity and that "the general civil laws of New Mexico and concurrent civil jurisdiction in the State courts and the Tribal courts shall apply to a visitor’s claim of liability for bodily injury." NMSA 1978, § 11-13-1(8)(A), (D) (1997).
. Throughout our review, we are mindful that this case presents itself on a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party and not a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Thus, we confine our discussion only to the issue of whether Tesuque as a tribe is an indispensable party in Gallegos’ suit against Zurich, arising from an incident that occurred at a tribal casino when no compact was in place. Nothing in this opinion speaks to the legal validity or invalidity of Gallegos’ claims based on the New Mexico Trade Practices and Fraud Act.
. Gallegos relies on Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert,
. We decline to discuss the specific provisions of the insurance policy in this case. Although no one disputes its existence, the policy itself was not in front of the district court.