RJ Williams Co. v. FORT BELKNAP, ETC.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-80-104-GF.,CV-80-104-GF. |
| Citation | 509 F. Supp. 933 |
| Parties | R. J. WILLIAMS COMPANY, Richard J. Williams and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. FORT BELKNAP HOUSING AUTHORITY and Fort Belknap Tribal Court, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Bruce P. Babbitt, Ferguson & Burdell, Seattle, Wash., Jack L. Lewis, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls, Mont., for plaintiffs.
Francis X. Lamebull, Harlem, Mont., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
THIS MATTER came on for hearing on the motion of the plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction. Defendants, Fort Belknap Tribal Court and Fort Belknap Housing Authority, thereafter moved to dismiss. From the files and pleadings, affidavits and testimony adduced, the court makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. Plaintiff R. J. Williams Company and Richard J. Williams are citizens of the State of Washington.
2. Plaintiff Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is a citizen of the State of California.
3. Defendant Fort Belknap Housing Authority is an Indian housing authority formed under the authority of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. § 1437, et seq.) and a citizen of the State of Montana, whose powers, duties and authority are circumscribed by Title 24 C.F.R. § 805 (Department of Housing and Urban Development Indian Housing). The form of the ordinance was dictated by 24 C.F.R. § 805.109 and § 805.110. The portions of the mandatory ordinance adopted by the Fort Belknap Housing Authority included Article 5, Section 2:
The council (i. e., the Tribal council) here gives its irrevocable consent to allowing the Authority to sue and be sued in its corporate name, upon any contract claim or obligation arising out of its activities under this ordinance and hereby authorizes the Authority to agree by contract to waive any immunity from suit which it might otherwise have; but the Tribe shall not be liable for the debts or obligations of the Authority.
4. In October of 1976, Williams Brothers Building Contractors, a joint venture of G.R. Construction Company, a corporation, and Havre Ready-Mix, Inc., a corporation, contracted with the Fort Belknap Housing Authority to build 50 mutual self-help single family houses under HUD Montana Project 10-10 for a contract price of $1,811,456.00.
5. On the 18th day of October, 1976, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company executed and delivered to the Fort Belknap Housing Authority its payment and performance bond in the sum of $1,888,256.00.
6. Disputes arose between the parties and on March 31, 1980, Francis Lamebull, contract attorney for the Fort Belknap Housing Authority, executed an attachment affidavit and applied to the Fort Belknap Tribal Court to attach property he alleged was owned by R. J. Williams Company and Richard J. Williams, which property was worth approximately $60,000. The execution was based on allegations of breach of the Project 10-10 contract although R. J. Williams and R. J. Williams Company were not parties to that contract.
7. Included in the property seized was property owned by the Hays/Lodge Pole School District, which property was subsequently released upon application to the Tribal Court by that School District.
8. At the time of the attachment by the Tribal Court, the jurisdiction of the court under civil matters was set out under § 14.1, Jurisdiction in Civil Matters, of the Fort Belknap Law and Order Code, 1970 Edition.
The Fort Belknap Community Court shall have jurisdiction of all civil suits wherein the defendant is a member of the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and of all other civil suits between members and non-members which are brought before the court by stipulation of both parties.
9. At all times material to any attachments of Williams' property, § 14.1 was the only jurisdictional grant under which the Tribal Court operated on civil matters.
10. Neither R. J. Williams Construction Company, Richard J. Williams, or Fireman's Fund ever stipulated to the court's jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs' attorneys moved in Tribal Court to quash the attachment and have the goods released, but as far as this court is aware the rulings are pending.
11. On September 19, 1980, the complaint and action for injunction and damages of plaintiffs were filed with the U. S. District Court at Great Falls against the Fort Belknap Housing Authority and the Fort Belknap Tribal Court. On September 24, 1980, service of summons and complaint was accomplished upon Dallas Howard, authorized representative of the Fort Belknap Housing Authority. Plaintiffs prayed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from, inter alia, withholding from R. J. Williams the materials then under attachment, interfering with the use of the property for movement and suing out any further attachment proceeding in any other court or forum or without an adequate bond. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, violation of federal statutes, deprivation of constitutional rights and damages in excess of $10,000 from the attachment.
Plaintiffs' proposed injunction was directed at the Housing Authority, its attorney, agents and those in active concert or privity with it, as well as the Tribal Court.
12. The defendants filed their motions to dismiss on October 1, 1980.
13. On September 12, 1980, the Fort Belknap Indian Community brought suit against R. J. Williams Company and Richard J. Williams, individually, for $8,718.25 for an alleged balance owing on a lease of warehouse space from the Indian community and other damages allegedly rising out of the non-payment. On the same day an order for temporary injunction and to show cause issued by the Tribal Court ordering that Richard J. Williams and R. J. Williams Company show cause within ten days of receipt of service why preliminary injunction should not issue, enjoining Williams' removal of any or all property in the tribal warehouse pending a hearing determining whether or not a permanent injunction should be granted.
14. It is alleged by plaintiff that:
(a) A notice of hearing on the temporary restraining order sought by the Indian community restraining Williams from removing any of his property was filed on October 13, 1980, after the filing of the federal court action and this court's initial determination to hold a hearing on Williams' request for injunctive relief;
(b) The Tribal Court hearing was held on October 20, 1980, and the attorney appearing for the Indian community in its attempt to enjoin Williams' removal of his goods was Francis X. Lamebull, who is also the attorney for the Fort Belknap Housing Authority;
(c) Francis X. Lamebull on October 23, 1980, stipulated on behalf of the tribal community in that action with local counsel, Keith Maristuen of Havre, Montana, for R. J. Williams to set a hearing over until November 3, 1980; and
(d) There has been and is no temporary injunction issued pursuant to hearing by the Fort Belknap Tribal Court on the claim of the Fort Belknap Indian Community since its initial notice of September 12, 1980.
15. On this court's order on November 21, 1980, an evidentiary hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against defendants and defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties then furnished the court supplemental authorities, primarily on the issue of jurisdiction.
16. By affidavit of Richard J. Williams it is alleged that since the hearing on the motions for preliminary injunctions and to dismiss, the Housing Authority made application to the Fort Belknap Tribal Court for release of certain of R. J. Williams' materials, to-wit: C-type windows, valued at approximately $4,000 to the Housing Authority for the Housing Authority to convey to the firm of Bell, Doney & Warner to be used on other construction projects on the reservation.
1. This court has jurisdiction of the plaintiffs and over the Fort Belknap Housing Authority and the controversy under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332, and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331, a federal question arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. The requisite jurisdictional amounts have been met by the pleadings of the plaintiff. The Housing Authority's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is accordingly denied.
2. This court is without jurisdiction over the Fort Belknap Tribal Court. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978); Trans-Canada Enterprises, Ltd. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 634 F.2d 474 (9th Cir. 1980); but see, Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe and Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the Fort Belknap Tribal Court's motion to dismiss is hereby granted. The court will, at a later date, file a memorandum explaining this ruling.
3. The Fort Belknap Tribal Court had no jurisdiction over the plaintiffs or their property under the applicable law and order code of the Tribe at the time of any seizure of the property.
4. Constitutional requirements of due process were not complied with in the issuance of the attachment.
5. Plaintiffs have shown sufficient probability of success on the merits of their complaint against the Housing Authority for injunctive relief to issue.
6. The burden upon the defendants is materially less than the burdens upon the plaintiffs if injunctive relief be ordered against the Housing Authority in that the defendants have a performance and payment bond answerable for any contractor's breaches or defaults on Project 10-10. Plaintiffs are being deprived of the use of their property.
7. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law should the Housing Authority not be enjoined.
8. A preliminary injunction will protect the ability of this court to expedite its orders and decrees against the Housing Authority.
9....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenai Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Dept. of Interior
...Trans-Canada Enterprises, LTD. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 634 F.2d 474, 476-77 (9th Cir. 1980); R. J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority, 509 F.Supp. 933, 938-41 (D.Mont.1981). Plaintiffs' reliance on Dry Creek Lodge II is misplaced. The issue in that case, as in Santa Clara, ......
-
NAT. FARMERS U. INS. v. Crow Tribe of Indians of Montana
...106 (1978); Trans-Canada Enterprises, Ltd. v. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, 634 F.2d 474 (9th Cir.1980); R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority, 509 F.Supp. 933 (D.Mont.1981). But see, Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir.1980). Because the Co......
-
Seibring v. Parcell's Inc.
...United States Supreme Court cases on point. (See United States v. Maggio (5th Cir.1975), 514 F.2d 80; R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority (D.Mont.1981), 509 F.Supp. 933.) For this reason, in cases premised on alleged section 1983 violations as to which there are no pertinent......
-
Shannon v. Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Civ. 99-25-B.
...59 Ass'n v. United States Dep't of the Interior Secretary, 163 F.3d 1150, 1157 (10th Cir.1998); R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth., 509 F.Supp. 933, 941 (D.Mont.1981). In light of this, it appears that, with the exception of habeas corpus relief, federal courts will not have juri......