Tribe v. City of Trinidad

Background

The Yurok Tribe sued the City of Trinidad and individual defendants over actions concerning the site of the Yurok Village of Tsurai, which is on City-owned land. The Tribe sought declarations and injunctions stating that the City lacked authority to decide or make findings about Native American tribes’ traditional and cultural affiliations with the Village or about the descendants of Tsurai ancestors.

The dispute involved the Tsurai Management Team, the Tsurai Management Plan, the City’s General Plan Policy 69, and a Partial Settlement Agreement between the City and the Trinidad Rancheria. The Tribe challenged findings in the settlement agreement that the Trinidad Rancheria had presented credible evidence of a traditional and cultural affiliation with Tsurai Village. The Tribe’s four claims sought relief concerning the City’s authority, the validity of its findings and related actions, consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act, and protection of the Tribe’s cultural and tribal sovereignty.

Motion to Intervene

The Trinidad Rancheria moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 for the limited purpose of asserting tribal sovereign immunity and seeking dismissal for failure to join an indispensable party. Intervention allows a nonparty to become part of an existing lawsuit when the Rule 24 requirements are met.

The court held that the Rancheria had legally protectable interests in the Partial Settlement Agreement, the resolution appointing it to the Tsurai Management Team, and General Plan Policy 69. The requested relief could nullify or rescind those instruments and therefore directly and immediately harm the Rancheria’s interests.

The court also found that the existing defendants might not adequately represent the Rancheria. Although their interests were aligned in defending the settlement agreement and resolution, the City and the Rancheria remained adverse in related state-court litigation. The court further concluded that the City could not make arguments about the Rancheria’s own cultural sovereignty and ancestral ties. The court therefore held that the Rancheria satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right and granted its motion to intervene.

Failure to Join an Indispensable Party

The Rancheria and the defendants argued that the Rancheria was a required and indispensable party under Rule 19. A required party is one whose interests could be impaired by the lawsuit or whose absence could prevent complete relief or create inconsistent obligations. An indispensable party is a required party whose absence means the case should not proceed in fairness.

The court held that the Rancheria had legally protected interests in the Partial Settlement Agreement and resulting resolution, which addressed its cultural, sovereignty, and property-related claims. Those interests could be impaired by the relief sought, and the existing defendants could not adequately represent them. The Rancheria could not be joined involuntarily because it was a federally recognized Indian tribe that had not waived sovereign immunity.

Balancing the required factors, the court concluded that the Rancheria’s sovereign-immunity interests outweighed the lack of another forum for the Tribe’s claims. The court determined that the Rancheria was indispensable as to Claims One, Two, and Four. Those claims sought relief that could nullify or rescind the settlement agreement, resolution, Tsurai Management Team appointment, or Policy 69. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part the Rancheria’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Claims One, Two, and Four. The court allowed Claim Three to continue past the failure-to-join issue because it concerned consultation and was unrelated to the Rancheria’s interests.

Claim Three and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Claim Three alleged that the defendants failed to provide meaningful consultation under 54 U.S.C. § 302706, part of the National Historic Preservation Act. The defendants argued that the statute applies only to federal agencies, not to the City or local officials.

The court agreed. The statute requires a federal agency to consult with affected Indian tribes when carrying out specified responsibilities. The court found that the Tribe agreed the defendants were not federal agencies or heads of federal agencies and cited no authority extending the statute to local governments or officials. The court also rejected the Tribe’s proposed use of a bad-faith negotiation standard from the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, finding no authority for that approach and insufficient allegations of bad-faith negotiations.

The court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Claim Three for failure to state a claim. The order stated that the case was dismissed with prejudice, and that a separate judgment would issue.