Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe
Decision Date | 14 July 1981 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 80-686 PCT CAM,CIV 80-925 PHX CAM.,CIV 80-686 PCT CAM |
Citation | 519 F. Supp. 418 |
Parties | BABBITT FORD, INC., an Arizona Corporation, Plaintiff, v. The NAVAJO INDIAN TRIBE, Through Its Chairman, Peter MacDonald, et al., Defendants. GURLEY MOTOR COMPANY, a New Mexico Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Peter MacDONALD, individually and in his official capacity as Chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Gerald W. Nabours, Mangum, Wall, Stoops & Warden, Flagstaff, Ariz., for Babbitt Ford, Inc.
Alvin H. Shrago, Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes, Phoenix, Ariz., for Gurley Motor Co.
Williby E. Case, Jr., Katherine Ott, Vlassis & Ott, Phoenix, Ariz., for Navajo Indian Tribe, Peter McDonald, Navajo Tribal Courts, Nelson J. McCabe, Navajo Tribal Police, Wilbur Kellogg.
John A. MacKinnon, Elizabeth Bernstein, DNA-Peoples Legal Services, Inc., Tuba City, Ariz., for Tom Sellers and Lorraine Sellers, husband & wife; Barney Joe and Alice Joe, husband and wife.
T. W. Shumway, St. George, Utah, for amicus curiae.
Plaintiffs herein are automobile dealers. Plaintiff Babbitt Ford (Babbitt) is an Arizona corporation doing business in Flagstaff, Arizona. Plaintiff Gurley Motor Company (Gurley) is a New Mexico Corporation doing business in Gallup, New Mexico.1
By virtue of their close proximity to the Navajo Indian Reservation, both plaintiffs enjoy a significant business from members of the Navajo Tribe. From time to time, plaintiffs' Navajo customers have defaulted on their obligations.2 In such instances, plaintiffs have exercised their rights under state law and have peacefully repossessed their vehicles.
In 1968, the Navajo Tribal Council enacted 7 N.T.C. § 607, which provides as follows:
To enforce the above provision, the Tribal Council enacted §§ 608 and 609:
Plaintiffs argue that 7 N.T.C. § 607 et seq. constitutes an attempt by an Indian tribe to assert civil and criminal jurisdiction over a non-Indian and that, as such, these ordinances are invalid and unenforceable. Plaintiffs move for a declaratory judgment to this effect and further, for an order permanently enjoining defendants from attempting to enforce their ordinances.
On February 9, 1981, this Court held oral argument on the following motions: plaintiff Babbitt's motion for preliminary injunction (filed August 27, 1980), defendant Seller's and defendant Joe's motion to dismiss Babbitt's complaint (filed September 29, 1980), defendant Navajo Tribe's motion to dismiss Babbitt's complaint (filed October 7, 1980), and defendant Navajo Tribe's motion to dismiss plaintiff Gurley's complaint (filed January 9, 1981).
At the Court's suggestion, plaintiff Babbitt and the defendants agreed that Babbitt's motion for preliminary injunction could be treated as a request for a permanent injunction under Rule 65(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Following argument, the parties were given the opportunity to submit additional briefs. Several such briefs have been filed, and this matter is now ready for disposition.3
The primary questions raised in defendants' motions to dismiss are:
(a) whether plaintiffs' claims are ripe for adjudication;
(b) whether plaintiffs' complaints allege a sufficient basis for federal jurisdiction;
(c) whether plaintiffs' claims are barred by sovereign immunity;
(d) whether plaintiffs' complaints state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
It is undisputed that two of Babbitt's Navajo customers have obtained tribal court judgments against Babbitt pursuant to 7 N.T.C. § 609. Although plaintiff Gurley cannot say as much, it does allege that "over the last two months, a number of Indians, whose motor vehicles have been repossessed, have threatened to initiate civil litigation against plaintiff in tribal court." Gurley Complaint at ¶ 19.
The Tribe argues that Gurley has failed to state a case or controversy for the reason that Gurley has not been the subject of a § 609 judgment. Babbitt's complaint is alleged to be deficient for the reason that the Indians who have obtained § 609 judgments have not successfully executed them. Neither of the Tribe's contentions can be sustained.
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 491, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 673, 675, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974).
From the foregoing language, it is apparent that Babbitt's allegations that it has suffered two § 609 judgments satisfy Article III. Babbitt need not allege actual and direct injury in order to state a case or controversy. It is enough that injury be imminent. See e. g. Babbitt v. United Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 43 S.Ct. 658, 67 L.Ed. 1117 (1923).
Since Gurley has been able to avoid § 609 litigation, this Court's conclusions as to Babbitt do not necessarily end the inquiry. Nevertheless, Gurley's complaint cannot be viewed in a vacuum. In light of the Babbitt judgments, for the Tribe to argue that Babbitt's co-plaintiff is not threatened with similar treatment seems frivolous. Moreover, Gurley has alleged that it has been subjected to harassment by defendant Tribe and that tribal members have threatened litigation. Viewed in this context, Gurley stands in substantially the same position as Babbitt.
The Ninth Circuit's most recent analysis of federal jurisdiction over disputes between Indians and non-Indians appeared in Trans-Canada Enterprises Ltd. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 634 F.2d 474 (1980). At issue in Trans-Canada was the Tribe's ability to enforce a business licensing ordinance against certain non-Indians by means of a civil enforcement action in Tribal Court. In response to the Tribe's attempts, the non-Indians brought suit in federal district court seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The Ninth Circuit refused assistance, holding that plaintiffs had not carried their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
Trans-Canada is relevant to the present case in that it disposes of two of plaintiffs' jurisdictional contentions: federal question jurisdiction under Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), and statutory jurisdiction under the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1303.4
Unlike plaintiffs in Trans-Canada, however, plaintiffs in this case have alleged jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question statute. The Trans-Canada Court specifically withheld comment on whether § 1331 would have vested the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Red Fox v. Hettich
...for the citizen of one state to assert personal jurisdiction over the citizen of another state." Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 519 F.Supp. 418, 431 (Ariz.1981) aff'd in part, rev. in part on different grounds, 710 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 926, 104 S.Ct. 1......
-
Swift Transp., Inc. v. John
...by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.2 Cardin v. De La Cruz, 671 F.2d 363, 365 (9th Cir. 1982) (Cardin); Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 519 F.Supp. 418, 423-24 (D.Ariz.1981) (Babbitt Ford); UNC Resources, Inc. v. Benally, 518 F.Supp. 1046, 1048-49 (D.Ariz.1981) (UNC Resources). Tribal Sovereign ......
-
Macarthur v. San Juan County
...710, 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975); Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981); Babbitt Ford Inc. v. The Navajo Indian Tribe, 519 F.Supp. 418 (D.Ariz. 1981); Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 [O]ur tribal courts are cour......
-
State of Wis. v. Baker
...federal and state officials enjoy. See Swift Transportation, Inc. v. John, 546 F.Supp. 1185 (D.Ariz.1982); Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe, 519 F.Supp. 418 (D.Ariz.1981). "Immunity from suit is an attribute of sovereignty," Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 415, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 1185, 5......