Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation v. Clarence Alexander

facts, so we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary judgment, Momox-

Caselis v. Donohue, 987 F.3d 835, 840 (9th Cir. 2021), and its evidentiary rulings

for abuse of discretion, Clare v. Clare, 982 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2020). We

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to GZ on the Alexan-

ders’ claims under § 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C.

§ 1613(c)(1). The posting requirement at 43 C.F.R. § 2650.5-4(c)(1) did not require

GZ to post the boundaries of § 14(c) claims before submitting a map of boundaries

to the Bureau of Land Management. In any event, the Alexanders’ claim was barred

by the one-year statute of limitations in 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b). Even if the period

were tolled because the 2008 notice was inadequate, the limitations period has still

expired. In 2011, the Alexanders and their attorney met with the Cadastral Survey

Manager and the president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference to discuss Clarence’s

2 § 14(c) claim—thus showing that they were on actual notice that Clarence’s § 14(c)

claim did not include all the…