Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01745/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01745-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PIVOTAL SANDIA, L.L.C., an Arizona

limited liability company; Rummel

Construction Inc., an Arizona corporation;

and City of Coolidge, Arizona, a

municipal corporation,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, a

federally recognized Indian Tribe; Annette

Stewart, Community Court Judge; and the

Gila River Indian Community Court,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1745-PHX-FJM

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

The court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ application for temporary restraining order

(doc. 2), and the defendants’ response (doc. 11), and stated our findings and conclusions

under Rule 52(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., on the record. For reasons stated at very great length on

the record, we concluded that the plaintiffs made a showing of (1) probability of success on

the merits, (2) harm that would be caused them if the restraining order were not granted, (3)

less harm that would be caused the defendants if the temporary restraining order were

granted that would not otherwise be covered by adequate security, and that the public interest

Case 2:07-cv-01745-FJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

- 2 -

would be served by the granting of a temporary restraining order. At a minimum, the

plaintiffs have shown that serious questions are raised and that the balance of hardship tips

in plaintiffs’ favor. 

For reasons stated at very great length on the record, we believe that the Gila River

Indian Community Court is without civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over non-Indians for their

activities on a federally granted right of way under 25 U.S.C. § 311. Montana v. United

States, 450 U.S. 544, 101 S. Ct. 1245, 1257-59 (1981). We believe that it is more probable

than not that the federal right of way is valid. No exhaustion of tribal remedies is necessary

before resort to the United States District Court for two separate and independent reasons.

First, the substance of plaintiffs’ claim is an immunity from tribal court jurisdiction and thus

if they are required to exhaust, they are deprived of the very right they seek to assert. Second,

the delay associated with resolving the jurisdictional question in the Gila River Indian

Community Court is inconsistent with the need for all the parties to resolve the underlying

merits with some measure of finality within a reasonable period of time.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants and all those acting in

concert with them are enjoined from asserting civil adjudicatory jurisdiction over plaintiffs

in connection with the subject easement and specifically are enjoined from enforcing any

tribal order against the plaintiffs and taking any action in the underlying case pending in the

Gila River Indian Community Court. This order is effective immediately as of 4:50 p.m. on

September 13, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs will post security under Rule 65(c), Fed.

R. Civ. P., in the amount of $250,000.00 for the payment of such costs and damages as may

be incurred by any party that has been found to be wrongfully restrained. The security will

be posted no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 14, 2007. 

DATED this 13th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01745-FJM Document 12 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2