Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05100/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
State of Oklahoma
Appellant
Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel. 

OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WYANDOTTE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, a 

Federally Chartered Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

F 1 LED 

U<1ited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APPEALS NOV 2 6 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-5100 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C.·No. 87-C-9-E) 

Submitted op the briefs: 

Joe Mark Elkouri, General Counsel, and David Allen Miley, 

Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Glenn M. Feldman of O'Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, Westover, 

Killingsworth & Beshears, Phoenix, Arizona, for DefendantAppellee. 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

Appellate Case: 90-5100 Document: 01019955926 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The Oklahoma Tax Commission appeals here the district court's 

denial of the Commission's motion to remand this action to collect 

state taxes against the Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma to state court 

for lack of federal jurisdiction. In the alternative, it appeals 

the district court's dismissal of the case based on the court's 

finding that the Tribe is immune from suit. Because we find that 

the district court did not have jurisdiction over the suit, we 

need not reach the immunity issue. 

I. 

The Commission originally filed suit in the District Court of 

Ottawa County to enjoin the Tribe from operating a convenience 

store until it had collected and paid all applicable state taxes. 

The Tribe then filed suit in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Oklahoma to enjoin the Commission from 

enforcing state tax laws against the store. The store is owned by 

the Tribe and located on tribal property. The action in state 

court was removed to federal court, and the cases were consolidated for trial. 

At the district court, the Tribe filed a motion to dismiss 

the action it had filed in federal court, so that the only 

remaining case would be the action the Commission originally filed 

in state court. The Commission did not oppose the Tribe's motion. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5100 Document: 01019955926 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 2 
The Commission instead moved to remand the state action back to 

state court. The district court denied both motions and reached 

the merits of the case. On appeal, this court held that the 

Tribe's action in federal court should be dismissed pursuant to 

its own motion. The Commission's action was then remanded to the 

district court for a determination of whether the Tribe is immune 

from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 

On remand, the Commission once again moved the district court 

to remand the case back to state court. The Tribe submitted a 

motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The district court 

denied the Commission's motion to remand and dismissed the case 

based on the Tribe's defense- of sovereign immunity. The 

Commission then brought this appeal. 

II. 

Unless expressly authorized by Act of Congress, an action 

brought in state court may not be removed to federal court unless 

the action may have been brought there originally. See 28 u.s.c. 

§ 1441 (1988); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 

(1987). Under the "well-pleaded complaint" rule, federal jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint 

raises issues of federal law. Franchise Tax Board v. Construction 

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-12 (1983). Appellees claim 

federal jurisdiction here under 28 u.s.c. § 1331 (1988). We 

review questions of law de novo. Morgan v. City of Rollins, 792 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5100 Document: 01019955926 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 3 
F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Oklahoma Tax 

Comm'n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838 (1989), the Commission argues that 

the action was improperly removed to federal court because there 

is no federal question that appears on the face of its complaint. 

In Graham, the Court held that a defense of tribal immunity "to 

the claims asserted does not convert a suit otherwise arising 

under state law into one which, in the statutory sense, arises 

under federal law." Graham, 489 U.S. at The Court therefore 

concluded that the state law tax claims against the tribe did not 

present a federal question. Though acknowledging Graham, the 

Tribe's response is two-fold. Initially, the Tribe argues that 

federal law has so completely preempted this area of the law that 

appellant's complaint is federal in character, thereby vesting 

federal courts with jurisdiction over the Commission's complaint. 

Second, the Tribe contends that the suit requires the resolution 

of a substantial question of federal law to establish a right to 

relief under state law. We address, in turn, each of the Tribe's 

arguments. 

A. 

A well-established exception to the well-pleaded complaint 

rule is the complete preemption doctrine. It is premised on the 

proposition that "Congress may so completely pre-empt a particular 

area that any civil complaint raising this select group of claims 

is necessarily federal in character." Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5100 Document: 01019955926 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 4 
v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63-64 (1987). The Tribe claims that 

Indian taxation is such a creature of federal law • .Citing Oneida 

Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974), the Tribe 

argues that relations with Indian tribes, "'according to the principles of our constitution, are committed exclusively to the government of the union.'" Id. at 671 (quoting Worcester v. Georgia, 

6 Pet. 515, 561 (1832)). 

The dispute in Oneida, however, centered around title to 

certain property. In determining that the suit could be removed 

to federal court, the Court stated: "Nor in sustaining the 

jurisdiction of the District Court do we disturb the well-pleaded 

complaint rule • • • • · Here·, the right to possession itself is 

claimed to arise under federal law in the first instance." Id. at 

676. The Commission's claim of right to tax the Tribe here, 

however, arises under state law. The Supreme Court has recognized 

that its cases "have not established an inflexible per~ rule 

precluding state jurisdiction over tribes and tribal members in 

the absence of congressional consent." California v. Cabazon Band 

of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 214-15 (1987) (footnote 

omitted). We are therefore faced with a situation "where the 

underlying right or obligation arises under state law and federal 

law is merely alleged as a barrier to its effectuation." Oneida, 

414 U.S. at 675. Under Graham, this barrier does not convert this 

to a case arising under federal law. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5100 Document: 01019955926 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 5 
B. 

We turn next to the Tribe's claim that the Commission's complaint runs afoul of what it terms the artful pleading exception 

to the well-pleaded complaint rule. The Supreme Court, in 

Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 

U.S. 1, 13 (1983), stated that "a case may still arise under the 

laws of the United States if a right to relief under state law 

requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in 

dispute between the parties." The Tribe argues that the question 

of whether the Commission may properly plead a cause of action to 

tax the Tribe requires analysis of a substantial question of 

federal law. 

The Tribe does not, however, indicate any other issue of federal law that must be resolved to decide the dispute between the 

parties other than the issue of sovereign immunity. We believe 

that the Court's decision in Graham forecloses any argument that 

the sovereign immunity of the Tribe is a sufficient question of 

federal-law to allow removal of the case to federal court. We 

therefore are bound by the Graham decision. 

III. 

The decision of the district court denying the Commission's 

motion to remand the case back to the district court is therefore 

REVERSED. The issue of whether the Tribe is immune from suit 

should not have been addressed and, accordingly, we VACATE the 

judgment of the district court dismissing the action. We remand 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-5100 Document: 01019955926 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 6 
the cause to the district court with directions to remand the 

action to the District Court of Ottowa County for further proceedings. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-5100 Document: 01019955926 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 7