Case Title: Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe

Citation: 374 P.2d 691

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1962-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
374 P.2d 691 (1962) Mary MARTINEZ, Plaintiff in Error, v. The SOUTHERN UTE TRIBE, a corporation, Defendant in Error. No. 20068. Supreme Court of Colorado. En Banc. September 17, 1962. Rehearing Denied October 8, 1962. *692 Bentley M. McMullin, Aurora, Lewis M. Perkins, Durango, for plaintiff in error. LaVerne H. McKelvey, R. Franklin McKelvey, Durango, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. We will refer to plaintiff in error as Mary or plaintiff, and to defendant in error as the Tribe or defendant. It was alleged in the complaint filed by plaintiff that the Southern Ute Tribe was a recognized tribe of Indians residing within the Southern Ute Reservation in La Plata and Archuleta counties, Colorado; that pursuant to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. A. § 476 said tribe adopted a constitution and by-laws which were ratified September 12, 1936 and approved by the Secretary of the Interior November 4, 1936; that said constitution and by-laws have at all times since adoption remained in full force and effect; that a Charter of Incorporation was issued to defendant July 11, 1938, and ratified November 1, 1938all as provided by 25 U.S.C.A. § 477; that defendant at all times since November 1, 1938, has been a corporation duly organized under said statute and known as "The Southern Ute Tribe." Plaintiff further alleged: It is further alleged that plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of $500,000.00 for which she seeks judgment, and further prays for entry of a decree establishing her status as a member of said tribe and corporation. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. The basic ground on which said motion rests is that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action for the reason that, "* * * to determine the rights of membership in an Indian Tribe would be an invasion of the right of sovereignty of The Southern Ute Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, and that the rights of determination of membership in the Southern Ute Tribe * * * is a matter under the control of the Tribe solely * * *." The trial court sustained the motion and entered judgment dismissing the action. Plaintiff seeks reversal by writ of error. It appears from the allegations of the amended complaint that the corporate charter of defendant contains the following provisions: According to her complaint, plaintiff is a ½ blooded Ute Indian born in the United States. By act of Congress June 2, 1924, now appearing as 8 U.S.C.A. § 1401 (a) (2), she was declared to be a citizen. *694 She is in fact a resident and citizen of the United States, hence a resident and citizen of the State of Colorado. According to her amended complaint she was a member of the Southern Ute Tribe when the constitution and by-laws of the corporation were adopted and under the terms of said documents she became a member of the corporation. As a member of the corporation she became entitled to certain benefits and property rights and was entitled to share in any earnings or profits of the corporation in common with all other members; that she was expelled from the reservation and from the tribe unlawfully and wrongfully and deprived of her property rights. She originally sought relief in the Federal courts where her action was dismissed on the ground that the claims set forth in her pleadings did not raise a federal question. Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe, (10th Cir.) 249 F.2d 915; certiorari denied 356 U.S. 960, 78 S. Ct. 998, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1067. In the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming dismissal of the action, it is said: Article II, Sec. 6, of the Colorado Constitution provides that the "courts of justice shall be open to every person, and a speedy remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character; and right and justice should be administered without sale, denial or delay." Sec. 25 of the same Article declares that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." The 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution declares that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Thus it is seen that plaintiff, having sought and been denied relief in the Federal courts, will be without a remedy of any kind if the state courts also decline to hear her grievance, and the State of Colorado will have denied her the equal protection of its laws in violation of the 14th Amendment. The defendant by adopting incorporation under 25 U.S.C.A. § 476 and consenting to sue and be sued in courts of competent jurisdiction within the United States, has rendered itself amenable to the courts of the State of Colorado in any action of which the state courts may take cognizance. It has recourse to the state courts for the protection of its own rights and is answerable in said courts to those who assert claims against it. The case of Whyte v. District Court, 140 Colo. 334, 346 P.2d 1012, is clearly distinguishable from the present case. There the parties were enrolled members of the Ute Mountain Tribe, were domiciled on the reservation and involved in a domestic controversy over which the tribal courts had exclusive jurisdiction. Here there is no showing of the existence of any court or tribunal to which the plaintiff may turn if the courts of Colorado reject her petition. We are here concerned only with the question of whether a corporation, even though its membership be limited to reservation Indians, may wrongfully deny to one of its members the right to participate in the enjoyment of property which it holds for the use and benefit of all its members. For the purposes of the motion to dismiss we must accept as admitted all of the material allegations of the amended complaint, and so far as appears therefrom the trial court had jurisdiction of the controversy and erred in dismissing the action. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the motion to dismiss. PRINGLE, J., dissents. McWILLIAMS, J., not paticipating.