Stock West Corporation, an Oregon Corporation v. Michael Taylor

942 F.2d 655 STOCK WEST CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-35201. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 1, 1990. Decided Aug. 20, 1991. Barbee B. Lyon, Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellant. Alan C. Stay, Office of the Reservation Atty., Nespelem, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before KOZINSKI, O'SCANNLAIN and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: 1 We consider the limits of mandatory federal court deference to Indian tribal courts. 2 * The tortuous history of this and related litigation graces the pages of numerous case reporting systems, including the Indian Law Reporter, the collected cases of the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, the Federal Supplement, and our own Federal Reporter. What follows is a synopsis. 3 * On July 24, 1984, appellant Stock West Corporation entered into contracts with two tribal governmental corporations of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation ("Colville Tribes" or simply "Tribes"). Pursuant to the…

We consider the limits of mandatory federal court deference to Indian tribal courts.

I

The tortuous history of this and related litigation graces the pages of numerous case reporting systems, including the Indian Law Reporter, the collected cases of the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, the Federal Supplement, and our own Federal Reporter. What follows is a synopsis.

A

On July 24, 1984, appellant Stock West Corporation entered into contracts with two tribal governmental corporations of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (“Colville Tribes” or simply “Tribes”). Pursuant to the contracts, Stock West agreed to design and to supervise construction of a sawmill on the reservation and to manage the mill’s operations and market its products. Appellee Michael Taylor is the Reservation Attorney for the Colville Tribes.

Under 25 U.S.C. § 81 , approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) is required for certain tribal agreements. 1 Taylor regarded the Stock West agreements as requiring such BIA approval. Nonetheless, the BIA determined on December 7, 1984, that the contracts did not require BIA review because the contracting tribal corporations were distinct legal…

dissenting:

I will not extend the reports by writing at length. Most simply put, I think that *668 the district court was correct. See Stock West Corp. v. Taylor, 737 F.Supp. 601 (D.Ore.1990).

The majority’s dual holding is that this is not a case for deferral to tribal court jurisdiction, nor is it a clear case of tribal officer immunity 1 . The result is that Stock West is allowed to open an entirely new front in its dispute with the tribe. It is allowed to sue a tribal officer in district court. However, Stock West’s action is based upon the flimsiest of complaints about that officer’s behavior toward itself. 2

Surely that does undermine the tribe’s ability to conduct its own affairs and to adjudicate its own disputes. Ultimately, as we recognize in so many other areas, governments are run by people. When we allow an attack upon those people individually we attack the operation of the government itself. 3 What we are doing here is allowing Stock West to drag its dispute with the tribe through the back door of the federal courthouse. The parties know that, the tribe knows it, the district judge knows it, we know it. So does the law. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

.The…