Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01079/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01079-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

While the plaintiffs have noticed their desire for oral argument in conformance with

LRCiv 7.2(f), the Court, in the exercise of its wide discretion on the issue of oral argument, has

dispensed with oral argument because it does not believe that any further argument from

counsel would aid the decisional process since sovereign immunity, the dispositive issue before

the Court, is a legal issue which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to brief.

- 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Cook, et ux., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 04-1079-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER and OPINION

Avi Casino Enterprise, Inc., et al, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Dodd and

Purbaugh (doc. #47). Having considered the parties' memoranda in light of the

record, the Court finds that defendants Dodd and Purbaugh should be dismissed

from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) because they are covered by

the sovereign immunity of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.

1

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 2 -

Background

The complaint in this action seeks to hold named defendants Avi Casino

Enterprise, Inc. ("ACE"), the operator of the Avi Resort and Casino, and ACE

employees Ian Dodd, Juan Mejia, Stephanie Shaik, Debra Purbaugh, and Andrea

Christensen liable based upon claims for statutory and/or common law dram shop

liability under the laws of Arizona and the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, and claims for

negligence and for punitive and exemplary damages under Arizona law.

The complaint alleges in pertinent part that on the night and/or early

morning of May 24-May 25, 2003, the individual defendants were celebrating the

birthday of a fellow employee at a bar in the Avi Resort and Casino, that during

part of the party, Dodd, as the on-duty manager, permitted drinks to be on the

house, that Purbaugh, a cocktail waitress, served drinks to Christensen, a fellow

employee who was then off-duty, that when an obviously intoxicated Christensen

left the party shortly before 5:00 a.m. on May 25

th

she was taken to her car by an

Avi Resort and Casino shuttle bus, and that minutes after leaving the casino

Christensen drove her vehicle across the center line of the road and collided with

plaintiff Christopher Cook who was riding his motorcycle, causing grievous and

permanent injuries to him. The accident took place within the exterior boundaries

of the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation on the Arizona side of the Colorado River.

In a previous order and opinion (doc. #38), the Court dismissed ACE,

Mejia, and Shaik from this action for lack of diversity jurisdiction on the ground

that they, like the plaintiffs, were all citizens of California.

Discussion

Dodd and Purbaugh raise three arguments as to why they should be

dismissed from this action: that they are protected by tribal sovereign immunity,

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Because this part of Dodd and Purbaugh's motion to dismiss is directed at tribal

sovereign immunity, which is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court deems this

portion of the motion to be brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). For that reason, matters

outside of the pleadings submitted by the parties which relate to jurisdiction can be considered

by the Court without turning the motion into a summary judgment motion. Pan American Co. v.

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.3d 416, 420 n.2 (9

th Cir. 1989).

3

ACE's Restated Articles of Incorporation, dated October 24, 1996, which are part of

- 3 -

that the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and ACE are indispensable parties to this action

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 19, and that Nevada law applies to this action and bars

the dram shop and negligence claims. The Court concludes that the immunity

issue, which the Court must resolve first since it is jurisdictional in nature, Wilbur

v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9

th Cir. 2005), is dispositive and therefore the

Court does not reach the other two issues.

2

Dodd and Purbaugh argue that they are protected from this suit by the

sovereign immunity of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe because the claims against

them stem from their actions as employees of ACE, a tribal corporation. The gist

of the plaintiffs' response is that Dodd and Purbaugh are not protected by tribal

immunity because their employer, ACE, has no such immunity.

In order to resolve the sovereign immunity issue, the Court must first

determine if ACE is covered by tribal immunity. The plaintiffs do not dispute that

the Tribe is immune from suit. See Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing

Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 1702 (1998) ("As a matter

of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has

authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.") The plaintiffs also do not

dispute that ACE is a corporation chartered by, and wholly owned and controlled

by, the Tribe.

3 The plaintiffs' main contention is instead that "[i]t is well-settled

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the record, see e.g., Exhibit A to the Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Dodd

and Purbaugh, state in part that ACE was incorporated pursuant to the Fort Mojave Business

Corporation Ordinance, that one of ACE's purposes was to own and operate a tribal casino on

trust lands within the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe's jurisdiction, that the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

owns ACE, that the customary functions of shareholders is to be performed by the Fort Mojave

Tribal Council, that ACE's directors are to be elected by the Tribal Council, that the Tribal

Council can remove directors for cause, and that ACE's capital surplus is to be deposited in the

Tribe's general fund.

4

The defendants cited to the Allen decision in a notice of supplemental authority filed

on October 4, 2006. The plaintiffs did not file any response to that notice.

- 4 -

law, at the Arizona Supreme Court and in all other jurisdictions that have

considered the issue, that tribal corporations - as distinguished from Indian tribes

- do not possess tribal sovereign immunity." (Emphasis in original) (Plaintiffs'

Opposition to Defendant Dodd and Purbaugh's Motion to Dismiss, at 12).

The Court concludes that the plaintiffs' position is incorrect as a matter of

law inasmuch as the federal law controlling this action extends tribal immunity to

business entities that function as an arm of the tribe. See e.g., Allen v. Gold

Country Casino, F.3d , 2006 WL 2788494, *2 (9

th Cir. Sept. 29, 2006).4

In

the Allen case, in which a former employee brought various employment, civil

rights, and conspiracy claims against an Indian tribe and a casino which was

owned and operated by the tribe, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the

case on sovereign immunity grounds. In rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the

casino was not protected by tribal immunity, the Ninth Circuit noted that tribal

immunity

extends to business activities of the tribe, not merely to

governmental activities. When a tribe establishes an entity to

conduct certain activities, the entity is immune if it functions as an

arm of the tribe. The question is not whether the activity may be

characterized as a business, which is irrelevant under Kiowa [Tribe

of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751, 118

S.Ct. 1700 (1988)], but whether the entity acts as an arm of the tribe

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 - 5 -

so that its activities are properly deemed to be those of the tribe.

* * *

[The plaintiff's] contention that the district court erred in failing

to scrutinize the nature of the relationship between the Tribe and the

Casino fails to accord sufficient weight to the undisputed fact that the

Casino is owned and operated by the Tribe. ...

... [T]he Casino is not a mere revenue-producing tribal

business (although it is certainly that). The [Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act] provides for the creation and operation of Indian

casinos to promote "tribal economic development, self-sufficiency,

and strong tribal governments." One of the principal purposes of the

IGRA is "to insure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of

the gaming operation." ...

With the Tribe owning and operating the Casino, there is no question

that these economic and other advantages inure to the benefit of the

Tribe. Immunity of the Casino directly protects the sovereign Tribe's

treasury, which is one of the historic purposes of sovereign immunity

in general. In light of the purposes for which the Tribe founded this

casino and the Tribe's ownership and control of its operations, there

can be little doubt that the Casino functions as an arm of the Tribe.

It accordingly enjoys the Tribe's immunity from suit.

2006 WL 278894, *2-3 (Internal citations omitted). The Court concludes that the

record and federal law establish that ACE clearly functions as an arm of the Fort

Mojave Indian Tribe and thus shares its sovereign immunity.

The second immunity-related issue that the Court must resolve is whether

Dodd and Purbaugh, as ACE employees, are also covered by the Tribe's

sovereign immunity. While the plaintiffs do not dispute that tribal immunity covers

tribal officials when acting in their official capacity and within the scope of their

authority, see Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority, 455 F.3d at 978, they

secondarily argue that

[b]ecause discovery is still ongoing - leaving the present record very

thin on facts - it is unknown whether serving free alcohol to an

intoxicated, uniformed, off-duty employee at a casino bar during a

company birthday party is an action taken 'within the scope [of the

individual defendants'] authority', although Plaintiffs strongly suspect

Avi Casino Enterprise, Inc. will vehemently deny that fact - at the risk

of losing its liquor and gaming licenses. (Brackets in the original).

(Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Dodd and Purbaugh's Motion to Dismiss, at

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

To the extent that the plaintiffs may be arguing that there is a distinction between an

employee of a tribal corporation and an employee of an Indian tribe for tribal immunity

purposes, the Court concludes as a matter of law from the undisputed record before it that

Dodd and Purbaugh, as ACE employees, are deemed to be employees of the Fort Mojave

Indian Tribe for tribal immunity purposes. Although the plaintiffs do not raise the issue, the

Court further concludes that Dodd and Purbaugh are covered by tribal immunity notwithstanding that they were not high-level tribal officers or officials performing discretionary

governmental functions at the relevant time. See e.g., Bassett v. Massachusetts Pequot

Museum & Research Center, Inc., 221 F.Supp.2d 271, 277-78 D.Conn. 2002) (Court rejected

plaintiff's argument that tribal immunity for tribal officials extends only to high-level officers or

officials who are performing governmental functions and exercising discretion, noting that tribal

immunity extends to all tribal employees acting within their representative capacity and within

the scope of their official authority.); see also, Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming

Enterprise, 212 Ariz. 167, 129 P.3d 78, 85-86 (App. 2006) (Court found that employees of tribal

casino who allegedly served alcohol to an intoxicated patron who subsequently caused a fatal

automobile accident were protected by tribal sovereign immunity). But cf., Baugus v. Brunson,

890 F.Supp. 908, 911 (E.D.Calif. 1995) (Court, in denying summary judgment on tribal immunity

grounds to a tribal casino security guard who was being sued for false arrest pursuant to

§ 1983, noted that although the guard was acting within the course and scope of his tribal

authority at the time he arrested the plaintiff for DUI, "[a] survey of federal decisions employing

the term 'tribal officials' indicates that it is virtually always used to denote those who perform

some type of high-level or governing role within the tribe.")

- 6 -

15).

5

The Court is unpersuaded by this argument because the plaintiffs have

only sued Dodd and Purbaugh in their capacities as on-duty ACE employees, i.e.,

the plaintiffs expressly allege in each substantive count in their complaint that

Dodd and Purbaugh were acting within the course and scope of their employment

when they allegedly continued to serve alcohol to an already intoxicated

Christensen. For example, the dram shop liability claims (the first and second

claims) both allege that "Defendants Dodd, Majia [sic], Schak [sic] and Purbaugh

were acting within the course and scope of their employment by [ACE] at the time

they served alcohol to Defendant Christensen, therefore, [ACE] is both directly

and vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of those defendants."

(Paragraphs 26 and 36 of complaint). The negligence claim (the third claim)

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

The complaint also alleges in paragraph 14, one of the paragraphs setting forth

factual allegations common to all of the claims, that "Defendants Dodd, Majia [sic], Schak [sic],

Purbaugh and Christensen were employees of [ACE] and were working at the Avi Casino &

Resort on the night of May 24, 2003 and in early morning hours of May 25, 2003. Defendant

Dodd was working as the Manager on Duty, Defendant Majia [sic] was working as a bartender,

and Defendants Schak [sic], Purbaugh and Christensen were working as cocktail waitresses."

7

Because an Indian tribe may waive its sovereign immunity and voluntarily subject

itself to suit by issuing a "clear" waiver, C&L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian

Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411, 418, 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 (2001), the Ninth Circuit has

concluded that an appropriate "sue and be sued" clause in a tribal enabling ordinance may

constitute a waiver of immunity for a tribal entity. See Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority,

455 F.3d 974, 978-983 (9

th Cir. 2006). While the Fort Mojave Business Corporation Act

(Ordinance No. 21), the enabling ordinance under which ACE was incorporated, contains a

"sue and be sued" clause, the plaintiffs have made no attempt in their response to raise the

issue of waiver. Given this failure, and the fact that there is a "strong presumption" against

finding a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity, Demontiney v. United States ex rel. Dept. of

Interior, 255 F.3d 810, 811 (9

th Cir. 2001), the Court will not consider any issue of waiver of

- 7 -

alleges that "[i]n the acts and omissions described above, Defendants were

acting, at all times, within the course and scope of their employment by [ACE],

therefore Defendant [ACE] is variously liable for the acts and omissions of the

defendants." (Paragraph 45 of complaint).

6 Nowhere in the complaint do the

plaintiffs allege that Dodd and Purbaugh were at anytime relevant to this action

acting outside the scope of their authority as casino employees. See Chayoon v.

Chao, 355 F.3d 141, 143 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 966 (2004) (Court, in an

action by a tribal casino employee who sued tribal officials for violations of FMLA,

affirmed the dismissal of the action on the basis of sovereign immunity, noting

that the plaintiff could not "circumvent tribal immunity by merely naming officers or

employees of the tribe when the complaint concerns actions taken in defendants'

official or representative capacities and the complaint does not allege they acted

outside the scope of their authority.") The Court thus concludes that Dodd and

Purbaugh are protected by the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe's sovereign immunity.

7

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

tribal immunity as it relates to the claims against Dodd and Purbaugh. Cf. Keeling v. Schaefer,

181 F.Supp.2d 1206, 1222 n.17 (D.Kansas 2001) ("It appears to the court Sawyer might have

been able to take advantage of the absolute immunity usually afforded quasi-judicial officers.

Because Sawyer did not raise this argument, this court will not address it. See, e.g., Pelfresne

v. Village of Williams Bay, 917 F.2d 1017, 1023 (7

th Cir. 1990) ('A litigant who fails to press a

point by supporting it with pertinent authority ... forfeits the point. [The court] will not do his

research for him.')") (Internal citations omitted.)

- 8 -

While the Court certainly understands, and is not unsympathetic to, the

plaintiffs' perception that this result is fundamentally unfair to them given the facts

of this case, the equities of tribal sovereign immunity is an issue for Congress, not

the federal courts. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.,

523 U.S. at 758, 118 S.Ct. at 1704-05; see also, Pan American Co. v. Sycuan

Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d at 419 ("Indian sovereignty, like that of other

sovereigns, is not a discretionary principle subject to ... the equities of a given

situation.") Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Dodd and

Purbaugh (doc. #47) is granted to the extent that defendants Ian Dodd and Debra

Purbaugh are dismissed from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) on the

ground that they are protected from suit by the sovereign immunity of the Fort

Mojave Indian Tribe.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs and defendant Andrea

Christensen shall file a joint report concerning the status of the prosecution of this

action against defendant Christensen no later than November 17, 2006.

DATED this 25

th day of October, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 60 Filed 10/26/06 Page 8 of 8