“Indian tribes are ‘domestic dependent nations’
“that exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories.” Oklahoma
Tax Comm’n v. Pottawatomi Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991).
“An Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has
authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v.
Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998).
“The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity is not limited to
government-related activity occurring on tribal lands, but also protects the tribe’s
off-reservation, for-profit commercial conduct.” Ameriloan v. Superior Court, 169
Cal.App.4th 81, 89 (2008), quoting Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies,
Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 760 (1998).
“Plaintiff’s arguments go beyond governing structure and
characteristics and seek a determination that sovereign immunity does not apply because the
Tribes have allowed third parties to extract too much money (benefit) from the tribal entities.
However, these concerns are the Tribe’s concerns.” People of the State of California
v. Ameriloan et al., Rulings/Orders Dismissing Case, p. 13, Los Angeles Superior Court,
Case No. BC373536 (May 10, 2012).
“The Federal policies intended to promote Indian tribal autonomy
are furthered by extension of immunity to the business entities.” Allen v. Gold Country
Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth factors for determining
whether a business operates as an “arm of the tribe”), relied upon in Ameriloan v. Superior
Court, 169 Cal.App.4th 81, 89 (2008).
“Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine distinct from tribal sovereignty
and is not dependent upon a finding that federal law preempts a state regulation.” People of
the State of California v. Ameriloan et al., Rulings/Orders Dismissing Case, p. 3, Los
Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC373536 (May 10, 2012).
“An immunity defense is effectively lost if an immune party is forced to
stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.” Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v.
Superior Court, 133 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1189 (2005).
Click here for the PDF version.
Share this:
