Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 25 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 3D14–277.,3D14–277.
• Citation: Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 165 So.3d 9 (Fla. App. 2015)
• Parties: MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, etc., Appellant, v. Guy LEWIS, Michael R. Tein, and Lewis Tein, P.L., etc., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

165 So.3d 9

MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, etc., Appellant

v.Guy LEWIS, Michael R. Tein, and Lewis Tein, P.L., etc., Appellees.

No. 3D14–277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 25, 2015.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 2015.

Bernardo Roman III ; Yesenia Lara and Yinet Pino, Miami, for appellant.

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., and Jack Reiter, Nancy C. Ciampa, and Paul A. Calli, Miami, for appellees.

Before WELLS, SALTER, and LOGUE, JJ.

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians appeals an order that dismissed its case and, in the alternative, granted summary judgment in favor of Guy Lewis, Michael Tein, and Lewis Tein, PL (hereinafter the Lawyers).We disagree with the dismissal but affirm the summary judgment.

The Lawyers represented the Tribe under its previous chairman.With the election of a new administration, the Tribe sued the Lawyers alleging counts of malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraud in the concealment, RICO conspiracy, RICO, theft, and conversion.Among other things, the Tribe claimed the Lawyers fraudulently billed the Tribe, represented certain tribal members in conflict with their representation of the Tribe, bribed the prior chairman with kickbacks, improperly divulged Tribal finances to the Federal Internal Revenue Service, and failed to inform the Tribe of the prior chairman's charging improper expenses to the Tribe.

The Lawyers moved to dismiss and for summary judgment contending (1) the lawsuit concerned an intra-tribal dispute over which the court lacked jurisdiction, and (2) the undisputed material facts indicated that the Lawyers had no liability.The trial court granted summary judgment and, in the alternative, granted the motion to dismiss.

1.Jurisdiction

Concluding this case was essentially a dispute between tribal members over intra-tribal governance which was a matter left to the sovereign tribe to resolve, the trial court dismissed this case for lack of jurisdiction.We agree with the Tribe that the dismissal was in error.The dispute on this issue focuses on the Lawyers' intent to raise as one of their defenses the claim that the Tribal government ratified or approved their actions, which, the Lawyers assert, raises the issue of whether those officials had the authority to do so.Because of its sovereign status, the Tribe has the right under certain circumstances to cause a Federal or State court to refrain from deciding issues of intra-tribal governance, at least in the first instance.Smith v. Babbitt,100 F.3d 556, 558(8th Cir.1996)(“Indian tribes retain elements of sovereign status, including the power to protect tribal self-government and to control internal relations.”).The Tribe's right in this regard, however, does not bar the Tribe from accessing Florida courts to resolve claims under Florida law against its Florida lawyers.

Instead, when filing a claim in a Florida Court, the Tribe is deemed to have waived the right to determine matters of intra-tribal governance, to the limited extent that deciding such issues is absolutely necessary to resolve the defenses and therefore the Tribe's claim.See generallyMiccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Bermudez,92 So.3d 232, 235(Fla. 3d DCA2012)(holding the Tribe's filing of document in a State court proceeding “constituted a clear, explicit, and unmistakable waiver of the Tribe's claim to sovereign immunity”);Ortiz–Barraza v. United States,512 F.2d 1176, 1179–80(9th Cir.1975)(in prosecution for violation of federal laws, federal court analyzed constitution and laws of Papago Tribe and determined Papago police officer acted within his authority in making stop and arrest of non-tribal member).

We distinguish Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Cypress,975 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1307(S.D.Fla.2013), in which the court...