Cadet v. Snoqualmie Casino
| Decision Date | 25 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. C19-1953JLR |
| Parties | Annette CADET, Plaintiff, v. SNOQUALMIE CASINO, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Annette Cadet, Bellevue, WA, pro se.
Rachel Saimons, Rob Roy Smith, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Before the court is Defendant Snoqualmie Casino's ("Snoqualmie" or "the Casino") response to the court's order to show cause why it is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. Although Plaintiff Annette Cadet opposed Snoqualmie's initial motion to dismiss , she did not file a response to the court's order to show cause (see generally Dkt.). The court has considered Snoqualmie's response to the order to show cause, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court concludes that Snoqualmie is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity and DISMISSES this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Ms. Cadet lives in Bellevue, Washington. (See 2d MFP (Dkt. # 5) at 1; 5/1/20 Cadet Resp. at 6.)1 On or about May 3, 2018, she paid Snoqualmie ten dollars for round-trip transportation via bus from Seattle to the Casino. (Compl. (Dkt. # 7) at 5; but see 5/1/20 Cadet Resp. at 1 ().) However, she missed the last bus home that night and had no money to take a taxi. (5/1/20 Cadet Resp. at 1.) She asked the Casino's security personnel for a ride home, and they told her she "could wait for the next bus in the morning." (Id. ) Ms. Cadet avers that one of the Casino's patrons pointed at Ms. Cadet and complained about her presence, and the Casino's security personnel asked Ms. Cadet to leave at around 2:00 a.m. (Id. at 1-2.) Ms. Cadet claims she told the security guards that she had come on the bus and asked for a "courtesy ride," but the Casino called the police instead. (Id. at 2.)
Three officers from the Snoqualmie Police Department soon arrived, and Ms. Cadet asked them for a ride home. (Id. ) Ms. Cadet claims one officer told her that he did not care about her situation and that she lived too far away to give her a ride. (See id. ) It is unclear what exactly happened next, but Ms. Cadet, who is black, claims that Snoqualmie's staff assisted the police officers in degrading, abusing, assaulting, and injuring her because of her complexion. (See id. at 2-3.) Ms. Cadet says that she experienced (Id. at 2.) Ms. Cadet asserts that (Id. at 3.)
Ms. Cadet's complaint alleges the following:
On [May 3, 2018,] at [the] Snoqualmie Casino, the defendant[ ]: (1) performed acts that a person of ordinary prudence in the same or similar circumstances would not have done; or (2) failed to perform acts that a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances because ... [the] Casino provided transportation and at [2:00 a.m.] refused to transport me [back to Seattle] after I lost all [of my] money and [had] no other options.
(Compl. at 5.) Furthermore, Ms. Cadet alleges that she lost her job, lost wages, experienced "[r]acial discrimination," suffered "[e]motional stress," and endured "[p]ersonal injuries," including a dislocated shoulder
, due to the Casino's actions. (Id. at 5-6.) She is requesting $100,000.00 in damages from Snoqualmie. (Id. at 5.)
On December 30, 2019, Ms. Cadet filed suit pro se against Snoqualmie, alleging negligence and discrimination. (Id. at 1, 5.) Snoqualmie responded to Ms. Cadet's complaint with a motion to dismiss. (See generally MTD (Dkt. # 9).) Snoqualmie argued that there were three reasons Ms. Cadet's complaint should be dismissed: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because Snoqualmie has sovereign immunity and Ms. Cadet failed to identify a basis for jurisdiction in the complaint; (2) failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; and (3) improper service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). (Id. at 1.)
Because Snoqualmie raised questions about the court's subject-matter jurisdiction in its motion to dismiss but failed to adequately support its argument regarding the Casino's entitlement to tribal sovereign immunity, the court struck Snoqualmie's motion to dismiss and issued an order to show cause regarding the Casino's tribal immunity and the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. (See 5/1/20 Order (Dkt. # 15) at 2-4.) Snoqualmie responded to the court's order, arguing that the Casino functions as an "arm" of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe ("the Tribe") and shares in its sovereign immunity. (See Snoqualmie OSC Resp. at 4-7.) Snoqualmie also provided copies of the Tribe's Snoqualmie Entertainment Authority Act of 2006 ("SEA Act"), Gaming Act, Tort Claims on Snoqualmie Tribal Lands Act ("Tort Claims Act"), Judiciary Act, and constitution.
Snoqualmie asserts that these documents establish its immunity from Ms. Cadet's suit. The court now considers Snoqualmie's response.
A. Whether Snoqualmie Has Waived Its Sovereign Immunity
Before the court can consider the merits of Ms. Cadet's complaint, it must establish whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Subject-matter jurisdiction is "the courts’ statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Id. Id. at 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003 ); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (). Given that "[t]ribal sovereign immunity is a quasi-jurisdictional issue," the court cannot proceed without first determining whether it has jurisdiction in this case. See Pistor v. Garcia , 791 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2015) ().
Federal courts typically lack subject-matter jurisdiction over Indian tribes absent congressional authorization or a waiver from the tribe. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez , 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). Id. (quoting United States v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 309 U.S. 506, 512, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894 (1940) ). "Thus, [the Supreme Court] [has] time and again treated the ‘doctrine of tribal immunity [as] settled law’ and dismissed any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization (or a waiver)." Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. , 572 U.S. 782, 789, 134 S.Ct. 2024, 188 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2014) (citing Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc. , 523 U.S. 751, 756, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998) ).
A tribe's sovereign immunity extends to a tribal enterprise only if that enterprise "functions as an arm of the tribe." Allen v. Gold Country Casino , 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (). The Ninth Circuit considers the following five factors when "determining whether an entity is entitled to sovereign immunity as an ‘arm of the tribe’ ":
(1) the method of creation of the economic entities; (2) their purpose; (3) their structure, ownership, and management, including the amount of control the tribe has over the entities; (4) the tribe's intent with respect to the sharing of its sovereign immunity; and (5) the financial relationship between the tribe and the entities.
White v. Univ. of Cal. , 765 F.3d 1010, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Breakthrough Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort , 629 F.3d 1173, 1187 (10th Cir. 2010) ).
A tribe can waive its sovereign immunity, but the waiver must be "unequivocally expressed." Santa Clara Pueblo , 436 U.S. at 58-59, 98 S.Ct. 1670 (quoting United States v. Testan , 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976) ) ("A waiver of sovereign immunity ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’ "); White , 765 F.3d at 1026 (quoting Pit River Home & Agric. Coop. Ass'n v. United States , 30 F.3d 1088, 1100 (9th Cir. 1994) ) ("A voluntary waiver by a tribe must be ‘unequivocally expressed.’ "); see also Bay Mills , 572 U.S. at 782-83, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (quoting C & L Enters., Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla. , 532 U.S. 411, 418, 121 S.Ct. 1589, 149 L.Ed.2d 623 (2001) ) ("[U]nless Congress has ‘unequivocally’ authorized Michigan's suit [against the Bay Mills Indian Community for opening a casino], it must be dismissed."). Without an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity from a tribe or an authorization from Congress, federal courts lack the requisite subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on matters involving tribes. See, e.g. , Santa Clara Pueblo , 436 U.S. at 58-59, 98 S.Ct. 1670.
To continue reading
Request your trial