Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01349/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01349-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Silvia Burley
Plaintiff
California Valley Miwok Tribe
Plaintiff
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Defendant
Meridian Foreclosure Service
Defendant
OneWest Bank, FSB
Defendant

Document Text:

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 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

----oo0oo---- 

SILVIA BURLEY, as chairperson 

of the California Valley Miwok 

Tribe; and the CALIFORNIA 

VALLEY MIWOK TRIBE, as a 

federally recognized tribe of 

the Miwok people, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ONEWEST BANK, FSB; MERIDIAN 

FORECLOSURE SERVICE; DEUTSCHE 

BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; 

and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SILVIA BURLEY; ANJELICA PAULK; 

TYLER PAULK; RASHEL REZNOR; 

MILDRED BURLEY; and TRISTIAN 

WALLACE, 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

CIV. NO. 2:14-1349 WBS EFB 

CIV. NO. 2:14-1567 WBS EFB 

Case 2:14-cv-01349-WBS-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 4
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. 

 

----oo0oo---- 

“Federal courts are ‘courts of limited jurisdiction,’ 

possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and 

statute.’” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 

1027 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah 

Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005)). Jurisdictional defects 

may not be waived, and the court has an independent and 

continuing obligation to assure itself that it may exercise 

jurisdiction over an action before it. Mashiri v. Dep’t of 

Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). 

The parties suggest that jurisdiction is appropriate 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because both cases “arise under” federal 

law. In both of the above-captioned cases, the sole basis for 

federal question jurisdiction involves the California Valley 

Miwok Tribe’s assertion of tribal sovereign immunity. In the 

first case, plaintiffs’ sole federal claim asserts that 

defendants violated plaintiffs’ tribal sovereign immunity by 

attempting to foreclose on their property. In the second case, 

defendants, who are members of the Miwok Tribe, removed an 

unlawful detainer action filed by Deutsche Bank to this court on 

the theory that the action implicates the Tribe’s sovereign 

immunity and thereby “arises under” federal law. 

Tribal sovereign immunity is a longstanding doctrine 

that bars suits against Indian tribes absent a clear waiver of 

immunity or Congressional abrogation. Okla. Tax Comm’n v. 

Case 2:14-cv-01349-WBS-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 4
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 

Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 

(1991). Tribal sovereign immunity may provide a federal defense 

to claims brought against an Indian tribe or its members. Okla. 

Tax Comm’n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838, 841 (1989) (citing Puyallup 

Tribe, Inc. v. Dep’t of Game, 433 U.S. 165 (1977)). However, the 

court is unaware of any case recognizing a freestanding claim for 

violation of a tribe’s sovereign immunity; rather, the case law 

suggests that tribal sovereign immunity may enter a case “only by 

way of defense.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State 

Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1386 (9th Cir. 1988). And 

while it is well-settled that tribal sovereign immunity may 

provide a defense to state-law claims, the Supreme Court has made 

clear that it does not transform a state-law claim into one 

arising under federal law or provide an independent basis for 

removal. Graham, 489 U.S. at 841. 

In light of these precedents, the court questions 

whether there is any basis for jurisdiction over either action. 

The court is nonetheless reluctant to dismiss these actions 

without inviting the parties to express their views about whether 

the court may exercise jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, counsel for all parties are HEREBY ORDERED 

to show cause why the first action, OneWest Bank, FSB v. Burley, 

Civ. No. 2:14-1349 WBS EFB, should not be dismissed, and why the 

second action, Burley v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 

Civ. No. 2:14-1567 WBS EFB, should not be remanded to San Joaquin 

County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Counsel for all parties shall submit separate statements 

identifying the basis, if any, for subject matter jurisdiction 

Case 2:14-cv-01349-WBS-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 4
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 4 

within ten days of the date this Order is signed. 

Dated: July 31, 2014 

 

Case 2:14-cv-01349-WBS-EFB Document 11 Filed 08/01/14 Page 4 of 4