Narte v. Nooksack Indian Tribe, (2002)

• Court: Nooksack Tribal Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LISA E. BRODOFF, CHIEF JUSTICE.
• Decision Date: 07 January 2002
• Docket Number: O-CiF-5/01-021,O-CiF-5/01-023,O-CiF-5/01-024,O-CiF-5/01-025,NOO-CiF-5/01-021,NOO-CiF-5/01-023,NOO-CiF-5/01-024,NOO-CiF-5/01-025
• Citation: Narte v. Nooksack Indian Tribe (Nooksack Tribal Ct. of App. 2002)
• Parties: MARIO NARTE, APPELLANT/DEFENDANT, v. NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.

MARIO NARTE, APPELLANT/DEFENDANT, v. NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE, RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.

Nos. NOO-CiF-5/01-021, NOO-CiF-5/01-023, NOO-CiF-5/01-024, NOO-CiF-5/01-025

Nooksack Tribal Court of Appeals

January 7, 2002

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

Trial court entered default judgment for violations of tribal fishing ordinance following Defendant's failure to appear. Court of Appeals holds notice of appeal failed to comply with tribal code provisions requiring that notice specify the parts of the decision the Appellant wants reviewed and the errors of law or procedure claimed to have been committed by the trial court. Appeal dismissed.

OPINION

LISA E. BRODOFF, CHIEF JUSTICE.

This matter came before the Nooksack Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal timely filed on November 2 2001 by Appellant, Mario Narte. Mr. Narte appeals from a trial court default order entered on August 1, 2001.

Background

On June 8, 2001 Mr. Narte was personally served with Civil Complaints for violations of several provisions of the Nooksack Fishing Ordinance. The Notice of Hearings notified Mr. Narte that "[f]ailure to appear in Court may result in default judgments being entered against you."

Mr Narte did not appear for the scheduled August 1, 2001 hearing, whereupon the Tribe moved for a default judgment. The trial court granted the Tribe's motion and issued a written default judgment order. The order was filed on August 7, 2001.

On August 28, 2001 Mr. Narte filed a Motion for Reconsideration requesting another hearing because "on August 1st, 2001 sockeye salmon season was open." The trial court agreed to hold a hearing on the motion "in the interest of justice." The hearing was set for October 3, 2001. Mr Narte did not appear on October 3rd, requesting yet another continuance.

A hearing on Mr. Narte's motion was held on October 19, 2001. Pursuant to that hearing, the trial court found that petitioner Tribe had properly followed all procedures and denied the motion to reconsider. See Order of October 19, 2001. This appeal followed.

Discussion

Acceptance of review by this court is governed by Nooksack Appellate Rule 80.05.010, which states, in relevant part:

The Chief Judge shall ...accept the appeal on be half of the Court of Appeals provided:

(a) The notice of appeal was filed within the required time limit,

(b) The notice of appeal substantially complies with the requirements of section 80.04.030, and

(c) The appeal appears, on its face, to comply with section 80.03.010.

The Appellant's notice of appeal does substantially comply with subsection (a) and (c) above, but fails to comply with subsection (b). This subsection requires that the notice comply with 80.04.030. Here, Appellant's notice of appeal fails to comply with subsections (c) and (d) of 80.04.030 which require that the notice "specify those parts of the decision which the...