Town of Browning v. Sharp et al
Filing
148
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 72) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. Count 1 is not dismissed. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 3/17/2015. (SLL, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
TOWN OF BROWNING, a
Montana Municipal Corporation,
Plaintiff,
CV-14-24-GF-BMM
v.
ORDER
WILLIE A. SHARP, JR.;
FORRESTINA CALF BOSS RIBS;
PAUL McEVERS; WILLIAM OLD
CHIEF; CHERYL LITTLE DOG;
SHAWN LAHR; ALVIN YELLOW
OWL; DEREK KLINE; HARRY
BARNES; ILIFF KIPP; TYSON
RUNNING WOLF; JOE McKAY;
EARL OLD PERSON; and NELSE
ST. GODDARD,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 23, 2015. (Doc.
1
140). Defendants sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 72). Judge Johnston recommends
dismissing Plaintiff’s counts 2-5. Judge Johnston recommends not dismissing
Plaintiff’s count 1.
Upon service of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, a party
has 14 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants timely
filed objections on March 9, 2015. Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ objections
on March 17, 2015. Defendants’ objections require this Court to make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Findings and Recommendations to which
objections apply. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court will review for clear error the
portions of Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations to which Defendants
did not object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Defendants argue that this Court lost jurisdiction over this case when
Defendants appealed this Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 123). Defendants contend that they possess tribal
sovereign immunity. Defendants immediately appealed this Court’s order under
the collateral order rule. (Brief of Defendant-Appellant at 1, Town of Browning v.
Willie Sharp, Jr., et. al, No. 14-36009, (9th Cir. March 4, 2015)).
The Supreme Court determined that a party could appeal immediately a
district court’s order denying immunity under the collateral order doctrine in
2
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147
(1993). The Court noted that the value of sovereign immunity would be lost “as
litigation proceeds past motion practice.” Puerto Rico Aqueduct, 506 U.S. at 145.
The Ninth Circuit has considered whether a district court retains jurisdiction
during an appeal under the collateral rule order. Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp.,
916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990). The district court denied a motion for arbitration in
Britton. The defendant appealed. The district court proceeded to decide other
issues in the case during the appeal, and ultimately granted a default judgment. The
defendant argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide any issues in
the case during the appeal. Britton, 916 F.2d at 1411.
The Ninth Circuit determined that nothing prevented the district court from
deciding independent issues presented in the underlying case. The Ninth Circuit
noted that “[t]he district court is simply moving the case along consistent with its
view of the case as reflected in its order denying arbitration.” Britton, 916 F.2d at
1412. The Ninth Circuit concluded that “[a]bsent a stay, an appeal seeking review
of collateral orders does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over other
proceedings in the case . . . .” Britton, 916 F.2d at 1412.
No stay has been granted in this case. Like the district court in Britton, this
Court retains jurisdiction during an appeal under the collateral order rule. Britton,
3
916 F.2d at 1412. This Court can decide independent issues and “mov[e] the case
along consistent with its view of the case” as reflected in the order denying the
motion to dismiss. Britton, 916 F.2d at 1412. This case has not proceeded beyond
motion practice, so the value of Defendants’ sovereign immunity will not be lost
even if the Ninth Circuit reverses this Court’s decision. Puerto Rico Aqueduct, 506
U.S. at 145.
Defendants and Plaintiff have not objected to Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations on any other grounds. The Court finds no clear error in Judge
Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts them in full. A plaintiff
may seek only prospective, injunctive relief under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young.
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, and
costs and attorney fees for counts 2-5. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which
relief can be granted. Dismissal of counts 2-5 is appropriate pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff seeks prospective, injunctive relief in
count 1. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff has not stated a claim
for which relief can be granted in count 1.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 72) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. Count 1 is not dismissed.
4
DATED this 17th day of March, 2015.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?