Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Napoleoni, 1D04-1774.

• Decision Date: 15 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 1D04-1774.,1D04-1774.
• Citation: 890 So.2d 1152
• Parties: The MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, Petitioner, v. Claudia Elena NAPOLEONI, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

890 So.2d 1152

The MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, Petitioner, v. Claudia Elena NAPOLEONI, Respondent.

No. 1D04-1774.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 15, 2004.

Claudio Riedi and Dexter Lehtinen, of Lehtinen, Vargas & Riedi, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.

Philip D. Parrish, of Philip D. Parrish, P.A., and R. Cory Schnepper, of Levine, Busch, Schnepper & Stein, P.A., Miami, for respondent.

WOLF, C.J.

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians (Tribe) seeks (1) a writ of certiorari to review a non-final discovery order in this workers' compensation action requiring a tribal official to appear for deposition; and (2) a writ of prohibition barring any further proceedings by the Florida Department of Labor, Division of Administrative Hearings, and the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) in this matter. We find that the JCC lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, we grant both a writ of certiorari quashing the discovery order and a writ of prohibition barring further proceedings.

Claimant/respondent, Claudia Elena Napoleoni, was injured while working at the Miccosukee Resort and Gaming Convention Center, which is wholly owned by the Tribe. The record reflects that in November 1998 the Tribe passed a resolution establishing its own workers' benefits system and explicitly rejecting the State of Florida's workers' compensation laws. Despite this resolution, claimant filed a workers' compensation petition for benefits with the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. The Tribe immediately moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that it had tribal immunity under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C 461, et. seq., and that it was not subject to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, or the jurisdiction of the JCC. Claimant countered that the Tribe had waived tribal immunity pursuant to sections 440.04 by purchasing a workers' compensation insurance policy in 1974. The JCC delayed making a determination on the Tribe's motion to dismiss and allowed claimant to pursue discovery. We find that the JCC erred in failing to promptly dismiss the matter.

Under Florida law, it is well settled that the Indian tribes are independent sovereign governments that are not subject to the civil jurisdiction of the courts of this state. See Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 611 So.2d 1235 (Fla.1993) (discussing in depth federal and state legislative history and case law of sovereign immunity of Indian tribes). As such, the Tribe and its agents are immune from suit in federal or state court without (1) a clear, explicit, and unmistakable waiver of tribal sovereign immunity, or (2) a congressional abrogation of that immunity. See Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs. Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998); Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 243 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.2001) (determining that the Seminole Tribe had not waived immunity from suit under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).

Even assuming the Tribe did purchase a workers' compensation policy in 1974, claimant's assertion that the purchase of such a policy is an explicit waiver of tribal immunity is without merit. The Tribe explicitly rejected waiver of this immunity by its 1998 resolution establishing its own tribal workers' benefits system. Therefore, the JCC had no jurisdiction.

A finding of lack of jurisdiction is supported by Cupo v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 860 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). There, the JCC dismissed a workers' compensation...