Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08196/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08196-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ivan H. Lewis, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

James Ray, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8196-PCT-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 38), plaintiffs’ response (doc.

45), and defendants’ reply (doc. 46). Plaintiffs allege that defendants “copied, duplicated,

and utilized the Native Americans’ Sweat Lodge and ceremony strictly for their own personal

gain and commercial profits,” in violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (“IACA”), 25

U.S.C. § 305e. Plaintiffs contend that defendants copied Native American ceremonial

structures and designs, and impersonated Native American traditions and customs.

Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs have failed to properly effectuate

service, lack standing, and have not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

We first consider defendants’ contention that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ complaint must contain “well-pleaded factual

allegations,” which “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __

U.S. __, __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). Under the IACA, plaintiffs must show that

Case 3:09-cv-08196-FJM Document 50 Filed 10/29/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

defendants (1) offered or displayed for sale a good, (2) “in a manner that falsely suggests it

is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or

Indian arts and crafts organization.” 25 U.S.C. § 305e(b). The Indian Arts and Crafts Board

(“Board”), which the IACA vested with the power to prescribe rules and regulations for “the

effective execution and administration” of its powers, 25 U.S.C. § 305b, has defined an

“Indian product” as “any art or craft product made by an Indian.” 25 C.F.R. § 309.2(d)(1).

The regulations also provide several illustrations of Indian products: “[a]rt made by an

Indian,” “[c]raftwork made by an Indian,” and “[h]andcraft made by an Indian, i.e. an object

created with the help of only such devices as allow the manual skill of the maker to condition

the shape and design of each individual product.” 25 C.F.R. § 309.2(d)(2). The Act “is

essentially a truth-in-advertising law designed to prevent marketing products as ‘Indian

made’ when the products are not, in fact, made by Indians as defined by the Act.” Indian

Arts and Crafts Board, Protection for Products of Indian Art and Craftsmanship, 61 Fed. Reg.

54552 (Oct. 21, 1996).

Pursuant to the language of the statute, plaintiffs cannot state a claim for either the

first or second elements of a cause of action. First, plaintiffs do not allege that defendants

offered or displayed for sale a “good.” Goods are “commodities; wares” or “portable

personal property.” American Heritage College Dictionary 586 (3d ed. 2000). See e.g.,

A.R.S. § 47-2105(A) (U.C.C. § 2-105(A)). The sweat lodge experiences that are the subject

of plaintiffs’ complaint are services, rather than “goods.” Second, plaintiffs do not allege that

defendants purported to sell an “Indian product.” The operation of a sweat lodge is plainly

not art, craftwork, or a handcraft. Moreover, the Board explicitly rejected the suggestion that

the definition of Indian product should cover “any cultural property of an Indian tribe or

moiety and include a reference to a compatible Indian cultural property law.” Protection for

Products of Indian Art and Craftsmanship, 61 Fed. Reg. 54553. The Board concluded

instead that the “focus on the contemporary arts and crafts market is in keeping with the

Congressional intent of the Act and the legislated mission of the Indian Arts and Crafts

Board—economic growth through the development and promotion of contemporary Indian

Case 3:09-cv-08196-FJM Document 50 Filed 10/29/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

arts and crafts.” Id. 

We cannot extend the IACA beyond “goods” purported to be “Indian products” to

also cover “services.” To do so would clearly violate both the language and purpose of the

statute, as well as the Board’s regulations. Therefore, plaintiffs’ allegations about the sweat

lodge ceremonies cannot establish a claim for a violation of the IACA. Accordingly, we

need not address defendants’ remaining contentions about service of process or plaintiffs’

standing. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 38). Because

it cannot be cured by amendment, plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 29th day of October, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08196-FJM Document 50 Filed 10/29/10 Page 3 of 3