Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00721/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00721-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

Lindsay R. NAAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GILA RIVER HEALTH CARE CORP., 

Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-0721-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Lift Stay, filed by Plaintiff on January 4, 2006.

[Doc. No. 20] Defendant responded on January 23, 2006, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on January

27, 2006. [Doc. Nos. 21, 22] After reviewing the parties' filings, the Court has determined that

oral argument is unnecessary and now issues the following ruling.

BACKGROUND

On April 16, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court, alleging that Defendant

terminated her employment in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. [Doc. No. 1]

This Court stayed the case on January 20, 2004, pending exhaustion in the Gila River Indian

Community Court ("Tribal Court"). [Doc. No. 8] The Tribal Court ruled in favor of Defendant,

and Plaintiff filed an appeal on May 23, 2005. Because the appeal remains pending, this case

remains stayed. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Lift the Stay, arguing that pursuit of this case in

Tribal Court is futile. In support of that assertion, Plaintiff points to a delay in naming a threeCase 2:03-cv-00721-SMM Document 23 Filed 02/07/06 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 -

member panel to hear the appeal, and Plaintiff further contends that she and Defendant have

been unable to obtain information on the rules and procedures of the appellate court, despite

numerous requests. Thus, Plaintiff argues, exhaustion is per se futile because there is no

functioning appellate Tribal Court, pursuant to Johnson v. Gila River Indian Community, 174

F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1999).

In response, Defendant also cites the Johnson case, but Defendant highlights the Ninth

Circuit's finding therein that "[d]elay alone is not ordinarily sufficient to show that pursuing

tribal remedies is futile." 174 F.3d at 1036. In Johnson, the delay by the appellate Tribal Court

spanned two years. Id. By contrast, in this case, the delay as of the filing date of the instant

Motion was approximately eight months. In addition, Defendant argues that the appellate Tribal

Court in this case is indeed functioning, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion. Defendant notes that

in Plaintiff's case against Defendant before the Tribal Court, a three-judge appellate panel

convened and issued a decision in an interlocutory matter submitted by Plaintiff. Defendant

therefore maintains that exhaustion is not futile and the stay should remain in place.

After reviewing the parties' filings and the relevant case law, the Court finds that the stay

should not be lifted at this juncture. In Johnson, the Ninth Circuit did not find that exhaustion

was futile, even though the facts are similar to the case at bar. See id. Although lack of a

briefing schedule, scheduled appellate argument, or responses to the plaintiff's correspondence

to the appellate court "create[d] doubt that a functioning appellate court" existed, the Johnson

court did not find futility. Id. Rather, the matter was remanded for further inquiry. Id. 

Here, eight months have passed since Plaintiff appealed the Tribal Court's decision, but

delay alone is not enough to render exhaustion futile. Moreover, the Court finds that the recent

successful use of an appellate Tribal Court panel by the very parties currently before the Court

is strong evidence of a functioning appellate court. Therefore, the Court will deny the Motion

to Stay.

The Court reminds the parties to keep the Court apprised of any progress in the appellate

proceedings before the Tribal Court.

Case 2:03-cv-00721-SMM Document 23 Filed 02/07/06 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 -

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay [Doc. No. 20] is

DENIED.

DATED this 6th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00721-SMM Document 23 Filed 02/07/06 Page 3 of 3