Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08014/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08014-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Interpleader Action

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mary Lou Boone, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-8014 PCT DGC

ORDER

The Court held a status conference with the parties on September 4, 2009. Prior to

the conference the parties submitted, at the Court’s request, a memorandum on the Court’s

subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. #109. The Court reviewed the memorandum and remains

concerned about its authority to become – and the advisability of becoming – involved in

matters of tribal government. The Federal Government has “a longstanding policy of

encouraging tribal self-government.” Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 14

(1987). “This policy reflects the fact that Indian tribes retain attributes of sovereignty over

both their members and their territory.” Id. (citation omitted).

Even in matters involving commercial and domestic relations, we have

recognized that subjecting a dispute arising on the reservation among

reservation Indians to a forum other than the one they have established for

themselves may undermine the authority of the tribal court . . . and hence . . .

infringe on the right of the indians to govern themselves. A fortiori, resolution

in a foreign forum of intratribal disputes of a more public character . . . cannot

help but unsettle a tribal government’s ability to maintain authority. 

Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 59-60 (1978) (citations omitted).

Case 3:08-cv-08014-DGC Document 113 Filed 09/08/09 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 -

The Court and the parties discussed these concerns and the parties’ efforts to settle

their disagreements. Although the parties have been negotiating a consent decree that would

call for a special election, appoint a special master and appellate master, and provide for

interim distributions of funds, counsel at the status conference agreed that the resolution

could be embodied in a settlement agreement rather than a consent decree. A settlement

agreement would simply be an agreement among the various factions claiming the right to

govern the tribe. Because it would be signed by all individuals with an arguable right to

tribal governance and would be made expressly binding on the tribe and its members, the

settlement agreement would appear to constitute a final and binding agreement. Because it

would not be a consent decree signed by the Court, the Court would have no role in matters

of tribal government. The Court would simply distribute the interpled funds as agreed in the

settlement agreement, discharge the Plaintiff banks from further responsibility, and dismiss

this action.

The parties at the conference provided the Court with a draft of the consent decree.

In establishes a freestanding mechanism for conducting a tribal election and resolving all

disputes arising from the election. It provides for the interpled funds to be deposited in a

bank and for interim distributions to be made under the direction of the special master. It

appears that the draft consent decree easily could be converted to a settlement agreement.

It also appears that, pursuant to the settlement agreement, this interpleader action could be

dismissed and the funds paid out to the bank to be governed by the special master and the

terms of the settlement agreement. Such a resolution would not, in the Court’s view,

improperly embroil the Court in matters of internal tribal governance.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. On or before November 13, 2009, the parties shall provide the Court with a

final, fully-executed version of the settlement agreement. The agreement shall call for the

Court to transfer the interpled funds as provided in the agreement, discharge the Plaintiff

banks from further responsibility, and promptly dismiss this action. If the parties are unable

to reach agreement by November 13, 2009, the Court will proceed with this interpleader

Case 3:08-cv-08014-DGC Document 113 Filed 09/08/09 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 -

action and will consider whether it should decline to exercise jurisdiction given the

likelihood that deciding the disputed issues in this action would inject the Court into matters

of internal tribal governance. If the action were to be dismissed on this basis, the Court likely

would return the interpled funds to the Plaintiff banks.

2. The parties agreed at the status conference that the San Juan Southern Paiute

Tribe will waive its sovereign immunity for purposes of this action as set forth in the

settlement agreement, thereby eliminating issues about whether the tribe should be dismissed

from this interpleader action on sovereign immunity grounds.

DATED this 8th day of September, 2009.

Case 3:08-cv-08014-DGC Document 113 Filed 09/08/09 Page 3 of 3