Wolfchild v. United States

• Decision Date: 25 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. 03-2684L & No. 01-568L,03-2684L & No. 01-568L
• Parties: SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

SHELDON PETERS WOLFCHILD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 03-2684L & No. 01-568L

United States Court of Federal Claims

Filed: October 25, 2011

Indian monetary claims by lineal descendants

of loyal Mdewakanton based upon the Sioux

treaties of August 5, 1851 and June 19, 1858,

the Acts of February 16, 1863 and March 3,

1863, and the Appropriation Acts for the

Department of the Interior in 1888, 1889, and

1890; motion for reconsideration

Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Wolfchild plaintiffs. With him on the briefs was William F. Mohrman, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis, MN.

Stephen Finn, Jody H. Schwarz, Daniel Steele, and J. Nathanael Watson, Trial Attorneys, Natural Resources Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. Of counsel were Kenneth Dalton and James Porter, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Jack E. Pierce, Pierce Law Firm, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for the Cermak plaintiffs and for the Stephens, R. Cermak, J. Cermak, Henderson, Klingberg, Alkire, Arnold, and Godoy groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Kelly H. Stricherz, Vermillion, SD, for the Mozak group of intervening plaintiffs.

Garrett J. Horn, Horn Law Office, Yankton, SD, for the Saul, Trudell, Taylor, Ferris, Henry, and Vassar groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Creighton A. Thurman, Yankton, SD, for the Cournoyer, Robinette, Kimbell, French, and Wanna groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Elizabeth T. Walker, Walker Associates, Alexandria, VA, for the anonymous Walker, the Enyard, and the Kitto groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Robin L. Zephier, Abourezk & Zephier, PC, Rapid City, SD, for the Zephier group of intervening plaintiffs.

Larry Leventhal, St. Paul, MN, for the Burley group of intervening plaintiffs.

Wood R. Foster, Jr., Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for the Lafferty, Blaeser, Whipple, and Lowe groups of intervening plaintiffs.

Bernard J. Rooney, Amherst, WI, for the Rooney group of intervening plaintiffs.

Scott A. Johnson and Todd M. Johnson, Johnson Law Group, Minnetonka, MN, for the Rocque group of intervening plaintiffs and the Descendants of Joseph Coursolle group of intervening plaintiffs.

James L. Blair, Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for the anonymous Blair group of intervening plaintiffs. With him on the briefs was Barry P. Hogan, Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ.

Gary J. Montana, Montana & Associates, Osseo, WI, for the Julia DuMarce group of intervening plaintiffs.

Nicole N. Emerson, Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, PC, Sioux Falls, SD, for the Garreau group of intervening plaintiffs.

Douglas Kettering, Kettering Law Office, Yankton, SD, for the Ke Zephier group of intervening plaintiffs.

Randy V. Thompson, Nolan, MacGregor, Thompson & Leighton, St. Paul, MN, for the Abrahamson group of intervening plaintiffs.

Frances Felix, pro se, Minneapolis, MN, for herself and members of her immediate family as intervening plaintiffs.

Royce Deryl Edwards, Jr., Joplin, MO, for the Robertson-Vadnais group of intervening plaintiffs.

Rory King, Bantz, Gosch & Cremer, LLC, Aberdeen, SD, for the Marvel Jean DuMarce group and the Youngbear group of intervening plaintiffs.

Brian L. Radke, Radke Law Office, P.C., Sioux Falls, SD, for the Schroder group of intervening plaintiffs.

OPINION AND ORDER

LETTOW, Judge.

This longstanding dispute between the United States ("the government") and approximately 20,750 persons of Indian descent (collectively "plaintiffs" or "plaintiffs andplaintiff-intervenors") involves revenue derived from lands reserved for eligible Indians. On August 18, 2011, the court directed entry of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), awarding plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors $673,944 for their statutory use-restriction claims. See Wolfchild v. United States, ____ Fed. Cl. __, ___, 2011 WL 3438414, at *36 (Aug. 18, 2011) ("Wolfchild VIII"). To effectuate the distribution of those funds pursuant to the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act ("Distribution Act"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1408, the court remitted and remanded the task of determining eligible claimants to the Secretary of the Interior (the "Secretary"). Id. at *37. The court instructed the Secretary to produce a roll of claimants and plan for distribution, and to submit within one year a report of that proposed roll and plan for the court's review. Id. On September 2, 2011, the government filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision. At the court's request, plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors responded. The motion is ready for disposition.

STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION

The government requests that the court undertake reconsideration using the standards applicable to interlocutory orders. See Def.'s Mot. for Reconsideration ("Def.'s Mot.") at 1-2; Pl.-Intervenors' Resp. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. at 5-6. In Wolfchild VIII, however, the court directed entry of "final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all claims." Wolfchild VIII, __ Fed. Cl. at ___, 2011 WL 3438414, at *36 (quoting RCFC 54(b)) (emphasis added). Hence, the case is no longer in an interlocutory posture as to those claims. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration does not fall under "RCFC 59(a), [but] rather . . . under the more rigorous standards of RCFC 59(e)," Wolfchild v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 779, 784 (2005) ("Wolfchild II"), as a "motion to alter or amend a judgment," RCFC 59(e) (emphasis added). See White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Emp't Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982) (post-judgment motions related to the merits should be considered under Rule 59(e) of the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P."));¹ Maxus Energy Corp. v. United States, 31 F.3d 1135, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("The universal rule is that, regardless of its label, any motion made within ten days² of entry of judgment which seeks a substantive change in the judgment will be considered a Fed.[]R.[]Civ.[]P. 59(e) motion." (citing Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1994))). Thus, the government's recitation of the standards forreconsideration is pro forma at best and insufficient by any measure because it inappropriately merges the standards for reconsideration of final judgments with those for review of interlocutory orders. Meanwhile, plaintiff-intervenors' brief, which argues that this court should evaluate the government's motion as a reconsideration of an interlocutory order, is simply incorrect.³

RCFC 54(b) sets out the difference between partial final judgments and interlocutory orders:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims . . . . Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims . . . does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

RCFC 54(b) (emphasis added); see also Florida Power, 66 Fed. Cl. at 95 (citing Exxon Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 874, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An amendment of an interlocutory order — which "may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment" — requires a lesser showing than a reconsideration of a final judgment. "At an interlocutory stage, the common law provides that the court has power to reconsider its prior decision on any ground consonant with application of the law of the case doctrine." Wolfchild II, 68 Fed. Cl. at 785 (emphasis added). However, once a final judgment has been entered, a motion to reconsider that judgment "seeks a revision which disturbs or revises legal rights and obligations that were settled by the previous judgment." Maxus Energy, 31 F.3d at 1139 (citing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 684 F.2d 691, 693 (10th Cir. 1982)). Consequently, "[t]he legal standards for the amendments of final judgments . . . are not coextensive with the standards for the review of non-final orders, which may involve matters as mundane as evidentiary rulings [or] extensions of time." Florida Power, 66 Fed. Cl. at 95-96; cf. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (departure from the law of the case requires a lesser showing than "the more rigorous requirements of res judicata").

For reconsideration of a final judgment under RCFC 59(e), the movant must make "a showing of extraordinary circumstances to justify relief." Crews v. United States, 424 Fed. Appx. 937, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 298, 300 (1999), aff'd, 250 F.3d 762 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (table)); cf. Infiniti Info. Solutions, LLC v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 699, 705 (2010) (discussing "extraordinary circumstances" in the context of RCFC 60(b)(6)). Thus, reconsideration of a final judgment is appropriate primarily ongrounds of "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Delaware Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applying Eleventh Circuit law regarding Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)); see also Board of Trs. of Bay Med. Ctr. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., Inc., 447 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (same).

ANALYSIS

The government seeks reconsideration of three aspects of the court's decision. First, the government requests the court to reverse its determination that the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-66, 109 Stat. 707 ("Reports Elimination Act"), terminated the Secretary's duty to submit distribution plans to Congress under the Distribution Act. See Wolfchild VIII, __ Fed....