Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York

• Decision Date: 08 June 2013
• Docket Number: 5:82-CV-0783 (Lead),5:82-CV-1114 (Member),5:89-CV-0829 (Member)
• Parties: THE CANADIAN ST. REGIS BAND OF MOHAWK INDIANS; et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF NEW YORK; et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

THE CANADIAN ST. REGIS BAND OF MOHAWK INDIANS; et al., Plaintiffs,

v.STATE OF NEW YORK; et al., Defendants.

5:82-CV-0783 (Lead)

5:82-CV-1114 (Member)

5:89-CV-0829 (Member)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: June 8, 2013

(LEK/TWD)

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

These ancestral land claims come before the Court on a Report-Recommendation filed September 28, 2012, by the Honorable Thérèse Wiley Dancks, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(d) of the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 581 ("Report-Recommendation"). An avalanche of Objections, Responses, Replies, and Surreplies followed. See Dkt. Nos. 589 ("State and Municipal Defendants' Objections"); 590 ("Akwesasne Mohawks' Objections"); 592 ("United States's Objections"); 594 ("St. Regis Mohawks' Objections"); 605 ("Akwesasne Mohawks' Response"); 606 ("State and Municipal Defendants' Response"); 607 ("St. Regis Mohawks' Response"); 608 ("Unites States's Response"); 610 ("NYPA's Response"); 618 ("St. Regis Mohawks' Reply"); 619 ("United States's Reply"); 621 ("Akwesasne Mohawks' Reply"); 626 ("State Defendants' and NYPA's Surreply"); 627 ("Municipal Defendants' Surreply"). After thoroughly surveying the asserted grounds of objection to the Report-Recommendation, the Court approves and adopts the majority of it and rejects the remainder.

II. BACKGROUND

Because the underlying history of this case¹ extends back nearly to the founding of the United States of America and has been retold many times, the Court does not provide a recitation of the facts except as necessary in each Part infra to contextualize and resolve the relevant issue. For an account of the history leading up to this case, and of this case itself, reference is made to the Report-Recommendation. See Report-Rec. at 5-14; see also Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York (St. Regis IV), 146 F. Supp. 2d 170, 174-80 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). In short, Plaintiff tribes ("the Mohawks")² and Plaintiff-Intervenor the United States ("the United States")³ (collectively, "Plaintiffs") are suing Defendants⁴ for title to and back rent, waste, and exploitation damages for land Plaintiffs contend was conveyed out of their possession unlawfully between 168 and 203 years ago.⁵ After numerous stays for settlement negotiation or pending resolution ofpotentially relevant Second Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court cases, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(c) on the ground of laches. Dkt. Nos. 446-47, 449 (collectively, "Defendants' Motions"). Judge Dancks has now recommended that Defendants' Motions be granted in part and denied in part, and the parties have objected voluminously as set forth supra. Report-Rec. at 46-47.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Objections to a Report-Recommendation

A district court must review de novo any objected-to portions of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation or specific proposed findings or recommendations therein and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); accord FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); see also Morris v. Local 804, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 167 F. App'x 230, 232 (2d Cir. 2006); Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Chylinski v. Bank of Am., N.A., 434 F. App'x 47, 48 (2d Cir. 2011); Barnes, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1; Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a priorargument."). A district court also "may receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); accord FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).

B. Rule 12(c)

Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings are decided by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus, "[t]o survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,'" Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)), when the complaint's factual allegations are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in a plaintiff's favor. Kirkendall v. Halliburton, Inc., 707 F.3d 173, 178 (2d Cir. 2013). The movant bears the burden of showing "'that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Juster Assocs. v. City of Rutland, 901 F.2d 266, 269 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting 5 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1368 (1969)); accord 5C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1368 (3d ed. 2012). "Where a court grants a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) motion based on an affirmative defense, the facts establishing that defense must: (1) be definitively ascertainable from the complaint and other allowable sources of information; and (2) suffice to establish the affirmative defense with certitude." Gray v. Evercore Restructuring L.L.C., 544 F.3d 320, 324 (1st Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

C. Sherrill "Laches"

Laches is an affirmative defense, see, e.g., Fendi Adele, S.R.L. v. Ashley Reed Trading, Inc., 507 F. App'x 26, 29 (2d Cir. 2013), with a peculiar application—referred to herein as "Sherrilllaches" or "the Sherrill defense"—in the context of ancestral land claims such as this. See generally, e.g., City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005); Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding laches applicable to ancestral land claims at law even though laches is a defense in equity); Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that the ancestral-land-claim version of laches does not require the elements of traditional laches). "Three specific factors determine when ancestral land claims are foreclosed on equitable grounds: (1) 'the length of time at issue between an historical injustice and the present day'; (2) 'the disruptive nature of claims long delayed'; and (3) 'the degree to which these claims upset the justifiable expectations of individuals and entities far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiffs' injury.'" Onondaga Nation v. New York, No. 10-4273-CV, 2012 WL 5075534, at *1 (2d Cir. Oct. 19, 2012) (quoting Oneida, 617 F.3d at 127); see also Oneida, 617 F.3d at 135 ("[T]he [Sherrill] defense is properly applied to bar any ancient land claims that are disruptive of significant and justified societal expectations that have arisen as a result of a lapse of time during which the plaintiffs did not seek relief."); id. at 136 ("[T]he equitable defense originally recognized in Sherrill is potentially applicable to all ancient land claims that are disruptive of justified societal interests that have developed over a long period of time, of which possessory claims are merely one type, and regardless of the particular remedy sought.").

Because Sherrill laches is an equitable defense, it does not operate strictly; rather, "[i]n equity, as nowhere else, courts eschew rigid absolutes and look to the practical realities and necessities inescapably involved in reconciling competing interests." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 201 (1973).

"Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling public and private needs." Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 300 (1955). . . . "The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case. Flexibility rather than rigidity has distinguished it. The qualities of mercy and practicality have made equity the instrument for nice adjustment and reconciliation between the public interest and private needs as well as between competing private claims." Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329-30 (1944).

Id. at 200-01; see also Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2563 (2010) ("[C]ourts of equity . . . exercise judgment in light of prior precedent, but with awareness of the fact that specific circumstances, often hard to predict in advance, could warrant special treatment in an appropriate case."), quoted in Dillon v. Conway, 642 F.3d 358, 362 (2d Cir. 2011); cf. Galliher v. Caldwell, 145 U.S. 368, 373 (1892) ("[L]aches is not . . . a mere matter of time; but principally a question of the inequity of permitting the claim to be enforced—an inequity founded upon some change in the condition or relations of the property or the parties."), quoted in Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 217-18.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Claim-Splitting

A threshold issue in this case is whether Plaintiffs' claims⁶ are divisible or must instead stand or fall together. The Court determines that the unique circumstances and equities of this case warrant separate treatment of Plaintiff's claims. Specifically, and as described more fully in each Part addressing the claims infra, no party filed objections regarding the rivers claim; the Route 37 and power-lines claims involve specific federal right-of-way statutes and regulations but differ greatly on the crucial issue of antiquity; and the islands claim...