TIMBISHA SHOSHONE TRIBE v. Kennedy

Good Law
714 F. Supp. 2d 1064·2010 WL 1676734
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 27, 2010Case CV F 09-1248 LJO SMSCalifornia3,574 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Neill, J.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND REMAND (Doe. 51) and DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND BY SUBSTITUTION (Doc. 54)

Introduction

The Court must determine whether it has federal subject matter jurisdiction over claims that, while based on state and tribal law, rely on decisions of the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). As set forth below, subject matter jurisdiction exists if the well-pleaded complaint establishes either: (1) federal law creates a cause of action; or (2) the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are rooted in either state law or tribal law; none is based on a federal statute. In addition, resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims depends on substantial questions of state and tribal law, not federal law. Finally, defendants fail to carry their burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, and for the reasons described below, this Court DISMISSES and REMANDS this action for lack of jurisdiction.

Background

Plaintiffs Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (“Tribe”), Edward Beaman, Virginia Beck, and Cleaveland Lyle Casey (collectively…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.