F OR P UB LIC AT ION


### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

D A N I EL T. M I L L ER ; A MBER L A N PH ERE ; P A U L M. M ATHE S ON ,

Plain tif fs- Ap pe lla nts ,

v. C HAD W R I GHT , Puy allup Tribe Tax Depa rtment, Enforc ement Of

fice r; H ER MAN D I L L ON , S R ., Chairman Puya llu p T ri be of I nd ians ; P UYA L L UP T RI BE O F I NDI ANS , a fede rally rec og nized America

n Indian tribe, Defendants-A ppellees

. No. 11-35850

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05395- RBL

ORDER AND AMENDED OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Wester

n District of Washington Ronald B. L eig hton, District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted Aug ust 6, 2012—Seattle, Washington
Filed Nove mber 13, 2012 Amended January

14, 2013M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es n o part of t he op i ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s * b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. Be fore : J ohn T. Noonan, Susan P. Gra ber, and Johnnie B . Ra

wl ins on , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Orde r; Opinion by

J udg e Rawlinson

SUMMAR

Y *

Af fi rm ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s d ismiss a l of an a nti tr us t action brought by

cig are tte vendors c halleng ing tax es imposed by

virtue of the a

uthority vested in an I

ndian tribe, the pane l held that the dis t ri ct cour t lacked subje ct matter j ur i s d i c t i o ni nl i g h to f

th e tr i b e ’ s s o v e r e i g ni m mun i ty. Th e p an e l h e l d

t h a tt h e t r i b e d i d

n o ti mp l i c i t l y

w a i v e its sovere ign immuni ty

by ag ree ing to dispute re solution pr o c e d ur e s n o r b y c e d i n g i t s a

u th o r i ty t o W a s h i n g t o nSta te wh e ne n t e r i n g i n t o a

c i g ar e t t e t a x c o n tr a c t

. T h e p an e l a lso held that fe dera l antitrust law did not expl icitly abrog ate triba l immunit y , and the Sher

man Antitrust Act was not a law of g ener al applica

bility vis-a-vis the tribe . T he pane l held that tri b al o ff i ci a l s we re p ro t ec t edb y t h e t ri b e’ s s o v er ei gn i m mun i ty b e c a

u s e th e y a c t e d

p ur s u an tt o th e tr i b e ’ s a

u th o r i ty. The pa nel also af

firmed t he district cour

t’s alternative ruling that the ac tion was barr ed by res judicata in light of pr ior lit ig a tio n in

state and tr iba l c ourt s.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 3
CO UN SEL
Rob e rt Ko va c e vic h, Spo ka

ne , Wa sh ing ton , f

or App e lla

nts Daniel Miller, Ambe r L anpher e, and Paul M. Mathe son. J ohn Howar d Be ll (argued) a nd Andre a Ge org e, Ta coma, Washington, for

Ap pellees H erma

n Dillon Sr., Chairman, Puya llu p T ri be of Ind ians , a

nd the Puya llu

p Tr ibe of Ind ians , a fe dera lly

rec og nized I ndian tribe.
J ames H. Jordan, Jr., Mil ler Na sh L L P, Seattle, Washington, fo r A pp e lle e Cha d W ri g ht, Puya llu p T ri be Tax De pa

rtme nt, Enforc ement Of

fice r.

OR

DE R Appe l l ee s ’ R equ es tfo r R ec o n s i d er at i o nan d Correc tion of F oo tno te 4, fi le d o n N ov e mbe r 2 6, 20 12 , is c on st ru e d a s a Pe tit ion fo r P ane l Re he ari ng . So c on str ue d, the pet itionis GRANTED. The opinion in this case , filed on Nove mber 13, 20 1 2 , is A M E N D E D to d e le te f o o tn o te 4 , Sl ip O p in io n, p. 13246. No further petitions for re hear ing or petitions for rehe aringen banc will be enter tained.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

4

I n r ev i ew i n g a di s t r i ct cou r t ’ s gr an t of a mot i on t o di s mi s s , w e “ ac ce pt 1 the fa c tua l al l egat i o ns o f t he co m p l ai nt as t rue and co nst rue t hem i n t he l i gh t mo s t f

avor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i f f

. ” AE e x r el

. H er nandez v
. Count y of Tul are , 66 6 F.3d 63 1 , 63 6 (9t h C i r. 20 1 2 ) ( ci t at i o n om i t t ed ).

OP IN ION
RAWL I NSON, Circuit J udg e:
T h i s i s th e l at es ti t er at i o no f c i gar et t e v en d o rs ’ c h al l en ge to tax es imposed by virtue of the authority vested in an I ndian tribe. Appe llants D aniel T. Miller (Miller), Ambe r L anpher e (L anpher e), a

nd Paul M. M at heson (Matheson) appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of the ir antitr us t a c tio n a g a ins t appellee s Herma

n Dillon (Dillon), Chad Wright (Wrig ht) and the Puy allup Tribe (the Tribe)

. The district c ou rt dismiss ed the ac tion for lack of

subject matter jur isdiction in l ight of the tribe’s sover eig n immunit y
. We have jurisdiction pursuant 1 to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we af firm the district cour

t.
I. BACK GR OUND
A. P laintif

fs Matheson, Miller, and L anph ere Math eso n is an e nr oll e d Puy a llu p Ind ian w ho ow ns a reta il store that sells cig are ttes. Matheson’s store is located within the Puy allup I ndian Reser v at ion. The Tribe operates r e t a i l s t o r e s i nth e s am e v i c i n i ty. Miller is a non-I ndian, non-re sident of the re servation who purc hased c iga

rettes f rom Mat h es on. As a re sult of the Tribe’ s ci gar ette tax, the price Miller pa id for a c arton of cig are ttes included a $30.00 fee

. This $30.00 fee stemmed from the c iga

rette tax contract (CTC) betwe en the State ofM I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 5

Washington and the Tribe. The price also included a $5 fee for the b en efit of Washing ton’s public health fund. Was hin g ton

re qu ir e s c oll e c tio n o f t

he $5 fe e to c omp ly

wi th pro v is io n s o f th e M a s te r Se tt le me n t A g r e e me n t ( M SA) , a se ttl e me nt be tw e e n the tob a c c o in du str y and nume ro us state s, including Washing ton. See W as h . Rev. Code § 70.157.010(e) . Pur s u an t to the MSA, tobacco manu facture rs make pa

y me nts to a

n e sc ro w f

un d f or pu bli c health. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 7 0

. 1 5 7.020, 43.79.480. To ba c c o ma

nu fa c tur e rs wh o a

re no t pa rt y to t he MSAmus t pay funds into escrow

. See Wash. Rev. Code § 70.157.020(a) and (b) . Miller seeks a

ref und of these f

ees a nd a per manent injunction ag ainst their future collection.
L anpher e is also a non- I ndi an , non-re sident of the rese rvation who purchase d cig are ttes from Matheson’ s store. L ike Miller, the pric e L anpher e paid i n cluded the tr ibe’s cigar e tte ta x an d th e he a lthfu nd fe e . L anp he re a lso se e ks a ref und of fe es paid a

nd a per manent injunction.
Prior to this l itigation, Miller and other plaintiffs pursued leg al re lief in other f

ora. Matheson first filed suit for inj un c tiv e re lie f, de c larator y jud g me nt, and

dama g e s in Washington st ate court. He specifica lly soug ht a ruling that the cig are tte tax contra ct wi th the state wa s invalid. The Washington Court of Appe als aff irmed the tr i al court’s dismiss al of the a ction, and the Washington and United States Suprem e C o urts denied r eview. Ma the so n v . G re

go ire , 139 Wash. App. 624 (2007), rev. de nied , 163 Wash. 2d 1020, cert. de nied , 555 U.S. 881 (2008).
Math e s o n an d L anp h e r e th e n f i l e d a s i m i l ar a c t i o nin Puy allup Tribal Court, se eking to inva lidate the cig are tte tax contra ct. This action wa s d i s m i s sed by the tribal cour

tM I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

6 beca use of the Tribe’ s sovere ign immunit y
. The Tr ibal Court of Appe als aff

irmed the dismissal.
B e fo re the c on c lus ion

of proc e e din g s in

the tr iba l c ourt , Matheson and L anpher e filed suit in the United States District Court f or the Western District of Washington. That ac t ion wa s d ism iss e d f

or fa ilure to c omp le te the tr iba l pr oc e e din g s. See Lanphere v. W

right , N o
. C0 9

- 5 4 6 2 B H S, 2 0 0 9 WL 36177 5 2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 29, 2009). We aff irmed the dismiss al. See Lanpherev. W r i g ht , 3 87 F . App ’x 76 6 ( 9th Cir. 2010).
B. The Tr ibe Chad Wright “is or was the Tax Enforc ement Of fice r of the Puy allup Tribe” and Ch i ef E x ecutive O ffice r of the Tribe’ s store located nea

r Matheson’ s. Herma

n Di l lon, Sr., is the tribal chair

man of the Puy allup Tribe.
Th e Puya llu

p T ri be e nte re d into a c omp a c t with the State of Washington whe reby

the Tribe a g reedthat tribal reta ilers would p u rc hase only

from Washing ton State Tobacc o Wholesalers or state cer tified wholesale rs. L ikewise, the Tribe a g ree d to require retailers to char g e a c iga rette tax equal to the amount of the tax t hat wo uld otherwise be imp os e d b y

the state

. The Tr ibe ’s a g re e me nt w iththe state provides that “[r]esponsibili ty for e nforc ement of the terms of this ag ree ment shall be shar ed by the State and the Tribe.

. . .” The a g ree ment also provides for mediation.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 7

C. M ill e r ’s , La nphe re’s, a nd M at he so n’ s A lle ga ti ons Before the Distr ict Court Miller, L anpher e, and Mat h es on alleg ed that the Tr ibe forc es them “to pa

y more for the cigar ettes by addingillega l c ha rg e s and re str ic tin g [Mathe so n’ s] pur c ha se s at w ho le sa le to wh olesaler s who cha

rg e more to [ sic] the product than other whole salers would char g e.
. . .” Their c omplaint sought an injunction, a decla

ratory judgme nt, da

mag es, and a

ref und of fe es paid a s a re sult of the char g es imposed by the Tribe.
D. The District C ourt’s Dism issal Order
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d th e Tr ibe ’s mot ion

to d ism iss , e xpla ini ngthat Mi lle r, L anp he re , a nd Matheson

“ fa ile d [to meet their] burden of

showing that s overe ign immunity has be e n w aived

and tha t [th e dis tr ic t c ourt ] ha s juri sd ic tio n to hear the matter.” Miller, L anpher e, and Matheson timely appea led.
II. STA ND AR

DS O F RE VI EW
We review de novo a district c ourt’s dismissal for lack of s ubject matter

jurisdiction. See Lee

son v. Transamerica Disabilit y Inc ome Plan , 671 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2012). “Onc e cha lleng ed, the pa rty asser ting subjec t matter jurisdiction has the burden of provingits ex istence.” Robinson v . United States , 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
We review de novo questions of sovere ign immunity

. See Al v ar e z v . H ill , 667 F.3d 1061, 1063 ( 9th Cir. 2012).M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

8
III
. DI SCU SSIO N
A. Sovereign Im m uni ty
1. Waiver of Tribal S overe ign Imm uni ty Miller, L anpher e, and Matheson ar g ue that the Tr ibe imp lic itl y wa ive d it s so ve re ig n immun ity by ag re e ingto dis pute re so lut ion

pr oc e dure s and

by cedi ngits a

uth or ity to Washington State whe n enter i n g into the cig are tte tax c on tr a c t. “Triba l s overe ign immunity protec ts I ndian tribes fr om suit absent express authorization by Congr ess or clea r wa iver by the tribe. This immunity

applies to the tribe’s c ommercia l as well as gove rnmental a ctivities. . . .” Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc. , 548 F.3d 718, 725 (9th Cir. 2008) (c i tations omitted). “[T] he settled lawof our c ircuit i s t hat tribal c or po ratio ns a c tin g a s an a

rm of the tr ibe e njo y

the same sovere ign immunity

g rante d to a tribe itself. . . .” Id. a) The Cigarett e Tax Contrac t
The nature of the cig are tte tax contract betwe en the Tr ibe and the State of

Washington does not r efle ct a waiver of tribal so ve re ig n immun ity

sim ply by e nte ri ngint o th e c on tr a c t.
As we r e c e n t l y

re co gn i z ed , “[ t ] h er e h as b ee na l o n gstanding dispute about t he st ate’ s power to tax cig are tte sales by tribal reta ilers on Indian re servations to non-I ndians. . . .” United States v. W

ilbur , 674 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2012). A s a me an s o f

r e s o lv in g th is d is p u te , Wa s h in g to nlaw “author iz[ es] the Governor to enter in t o cigar ette tax contra cts (‘CTC’) with va rious tribes. A CTC is ty

pically anM I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 9

ag ree ment by

the state to re troce de its cigar ette taxes to the tribe for transac tions covere d by a CTC in ex chang e for the tribe’s a g ree ment to impose a ciga rette tax equal to the state ’s and to use the pr ocee ds to f u n d es sential tribal g overnme nt service s. . . .” Id. at 1166 (citation omitted). “The leg islation de sc ri be s c on dit ion s a

tr ibe mus t a c c e pt t o e nte r i nto a CTC

. The CTC shall provide that the triba l cig are tte tax rate be one hundred perce nt of the state c iga rette a nd state and loc al sales and use taxes. . . .” Id. (citation and inter nal quotation marks omitted). “The contra ct shall provide that Indian re tailers ca n purcha se cig arettes only from license d Washington wholesale rs, tribal manufa cture rs, or out-of -state whole salers or manu fa c tur e rs wh o h ave a g re e d to c omp ly wi th t he te rm s of the CTC. . . .” Id. (citation and inter nal q u o t at ion marks omitted).
As descr ibed in W

ilbur , any fee s imposed pursuant to the CTC stem from the St ate of Washington’s c omplex statutory require ments as applied to the Tribe. Nothing about compliance with these leg al re quirement s evidenc es a c lear w a iv e r b y th e T r ib e o f it s s o v e r e ign immunity

. S e e C & L Enters., Inc. v . Citi

zen Band Potawatomi Indian T r i b e of Okla. , 532 U.S. 411, 418-19 (20 0 1 ) (n oting that a waiver of tr iba l so ve re ig n immun ity mus t be cle ar) ; se e als o M ax we ll v. County of San Diego , 697 F.3d 944, 953 ( 9 t h Cir. 2012) (“Waiver s of tribal sover eig n immunit y must be expli cit and unequivoca l . . . .”) (c itation omit ted). b) The Di sput e Re so lut ion Cl aus e The Supreme Court has held that agree ing to a n ar b i tra t i o ncl au s e m ay

es t ab l i s ha c l ea r w a i v e ro f s o v er ei gn immunit y
. S

e e C & L , 532 U.S. at 418-19

.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

10
In C & L , the Pot aw atom i Tribe ente red into a f orm contra ct with C & L

for roofing work. The form contra ct was proposed by

the Tribe, and all details not set out in the form wer e added by

the Tribe. See id. a t 41 4. Th e Tr ibe e xpre ssl y a g r e e d t o ar b i tr a t e an y

d i s p u t e s ar i s i n g un d e r

th e c o n tr a c t, with Oklahoma law de signated as t h e go verninglaw. The Tribe also expli citly

consente d to enforc ement of a ny ensuing arbitrati o n aw ard “ in any court having jur isdiction thereof.” Id. Oklahoma has promulg ated a Uniform Arbitrat i o n Act that c on fe rs j uri sd ic tio n u po n th e c ourt s o f O kla

ho ma to enfor ce a rbitration ag ree men t s and any resulting arbitration awa rds. See id. at 415.
Af te r t he co nt rac t w a s si g ne d, the Tr ibe de c ide d to procur e the se rvice s of a diff ere nt roofingcontra ctor. See id. a t 41 6. Whe n C & Lso ug ht a rb itr a tio n, the Tr ibe de c lin e d to participate in the ar

bitration proce eding s. S e e id. C & L ob ta ine d a

n a rb itr a tio n a

wa rd and sued in Ok laho ma

sta te court to enf

orce the awa

rd. See id. T he Tribe asser ted sovere ign immunit y
. Following a rema nd from th e U nited State s Su pr e me Court , th e Ok laho ma Court of Civ il App e a ls ruled that the Tr ibe had not wa ived soverei gn immunit y by ag ree ing to a

rbitrate. Reversing the Oklahoma a ppeals c ourt, the United States Supreme Court explained that the “contrac t’s provision for ar b i tra t i o nan d

re l at edp re s c r i p t i o n s ” w ai v eds o v er ei gn immunit y
. See id. at 418. B y desig nating Oklahoma law as the law g ov ernin g c on tr a c t pe rf or manc e , th e Tr ibe a lso consente d to application of Okla homa’s Unifor

m Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Ac t in turn vested jurisd i ct i o n in the Oklahoma state courts over any arbitration awar d. See id. at 419.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 11

W e have al so hel d that a tr i b e waived i t s soverei gn i m m uni t y when t he 2 tr ib e it se lf initiate s o r j o ins a law su it. S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v
. Or egon , 6 5 7 F .2d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 3

- 1 4 (9 t h C i r. 1 9 8 1 ). T ha t circum st an ce d o es no t ex i st i n t hi s ca s e. We have de scribed the ruling in C & L as one in whic h:
the C ourt relied on two pr ovisions of a contra ct betwe en a tribe a nd a construc tion company to find sufficient e vidence of a c lear waiver of tribal sover eig n immunit y : (1) a clause s t ati ng that all contra ctual disputes sh o u ld be re solved ac cordingto America n Arbitration Association Rul es and pr oviding fo r e nf or c e me nt o f t

he arb itr a tor ’s awa

rd in ac co rdance with applica

ble law in any

court havingj u ri sdiction thereof ; and (2) a choice -of- law cla

use conse nting to the law of the projec t location, Okl ahoma. The ref ere nced a

rbitrati on rules provide d that parties to these rules shall be de emed to have c on s e n t e d t o e n f

o r c e m e n t o f th e aw ar d in fe de ra l and

state c ourt

. Demontiney

v. U.S. ex rel. Dep’ t of Interior, Bureau of Indian Af fai rs , 2 55 F .3 d 8 01 , 8 13 n. 5 ( 9th Ci r. 20 01 ) ( c itatio ns , alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). 2
In contra st, the contrac t provisions at issue in Demontiney a dd re s s e d s u c hmun d an e i s s u e s a s i n d e m n i ty , d e f a u lt reme dies, interest rat es, and subjug ation to enumerated fede ral law s. See id. at 81 2. I nd e e d, the c on tr a c t ex pres sly provided that the Tribe reta ined its sovereig n immunit y
. See id. Th e on ly

c on tr a c t pr ov isi on

tha t addre sse d d isp uteM I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

12

“A t its e sse n c e , m e d ia tio n is a p ro c e ss o f ne g o tiatio n s fac ili ta te d b y a 3 third p e rs o n (s ) w h o a ssists d isp u ta n ts to p u rs u e a m u tua lly a g re e a b le
se ttl e m e n t o f t h e ir c o n fli c t. In c o n tra st to a d j u d ic a to ry fo rm s o f d isp u te r es ol ut i on - - he ar i ng s , ar bi t r at i on and t r i al s - - medi at i on i s a c ont r act ar i an p ro c e ss. T h e sa lien t f e a tur e s o f m e d ia tio n a re a n info rm a l p ro c e ss, a n e u tra l m e d ia to r w itho u t au tho rity to c o m m a n d a re su lt, [a n d ] d isp u ta n ts who par t i ci pat e vol un t ar i l y an d s et t l e of t hei r own a ccor d .

. . ” Al an K irtley, T

h e M e d ia tio n P riv ileg e ’s T ra n sitio n fro m T

h e o r y to Im pl em ent at i on : D es i gn i ng a M edi at i on P r i vi l ege St an da r d t o P r ot ect M ed i a t i o n P a rt i cip a n ts, th e P ro ce ss a n d th e P u b l i c In t ere st , 1995 J

. D i s p. R esol. 1, 5- 6 (19 9 5 ) ( f

o o t no t e ref

erences om i t t ed ). resoluti o na t a ll s im

p ly p r o v id e d th a t t h e d e c is io no f

the Business Committee would be fina l absent a de termination from a “ court of c ompetent jurisdiction” of fr aud, arbitra riness, ca priciousness or g ross err or. Id. Un lik e tho se in C & L , the contra ct provi s i ons in Demontiney did not signa l an inte nt t o w a ive so ve re ig n immun ity . T he di sp ute resolution clause did not “re fer ence or incorporate proc edure s that p ro vide for non- tribal jurisdiction for enf orce ment . . .” Id. at 813 n.5. Rathe r, the c on tr a c t pro vis ion s at is su e in Demontiney desig nated the tr ibal court as the cour t of ex clus ive jurisdiction and desig nated triba l law as the g overninglaw. See id. at 812.
Th e fa c ts o f t

his c a se are mor e akin to t ho se in Demontiney

than to the fa cts in C

& L . The i n cl usion of a mediation provision to resolve disputes betwe en the State of Washington and the Tribe doe s not evidenc e a c lear and expli cit waiver

of immunity . As a pre li m i nary matter, mediation g ener ally

is not bindi ng and d o es not refle ct an i n t e n tt o s u

b m i tt o a d

j u d i c a t i o nb y a

n o n - tr i b a l e n t i ty. 3 Moreove r, the CTC in this case did not contain any of the provisions, including subjec ting its elf to the jurisdiction of the s tate, that formed the basis for the waiver in C & L . TheM I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 13

Tribe did not w aive its sover eig n immunit y when it executed the CTC. See D emontiney , 255 F.3d at 812.
2. Abrogation of T ribal Sovereign Im m uni ty Miller, L anpher e, and Matheson contend that tribal immunit y is abrog ate d by

fede ral a ntitrust laws. The Tribe counter s that fede ral a

ntitrust law does n o t ap ply to I ndian tr ibe s. Abrog ation of trib al i mmunity by Congr ess “must be unequivoca lly

expressed i n expli cit leg islation. Abrog ation of tribal sover eig n immunit y may not be impli ed.” Krystal Energy Co. v. Navajo Nati on , 357 F.3d 1055, 1056 ( 9th Cir. 2004), as amende d on denial of reh’g e n banc (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In Krystal , we he ld that the B ankruptc y

Code abrog ated triba l sove reig n immunit y by its refe renc e to a ll f

oreig n and domestic g overnme nts. See id. at 1057-58. Similarly , the Tenth Circuit h as held that the Safe D rinking Water Ac t “contains a clea r and ex plicit waiver of tribal immunity ” because its definition of person includes mun ic ipa lit ie s, wh os e de fi nit ion in t ur n in c lud e s I

n d i a n t r i b e s. Osage Tribal Council ex rel. Os age Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep’ t of Labor , 187 F.3d 1174, 1181 (10th Cir. 1999). In the s am e v ein, the Eig hth Circuit has held that the Resourc e Cons er v ati on and Rec overy Act of 1976 “ clea

rly indicates cong ressional intent to abrog ate the T ribe’s sovere i gn im m unity . . .” BlueLe

gs v . U .S . B ur e au of I

nd ian Af fai rs , 867 F.2d 1094, 1097 ( 8th Cir. 1989).
Unlike these laws, fe dera l antitrust law does not

“ un e qu ivo c a lly

e xpre ss[] in

e xplic it l e g isl a tio n” th a t it abrog ates tribal sove reign i m m u nity

. Krystal , 357 F.3d at 1056 ( c it a ti o n s an d inte r

n a l qu o tati o n ma

r k s o mi tt e d )

. TheM I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

14
S h erm an Ac t , fo r e x am p l e, re fe rs o n l y t o s t at es an d fo re i gn nations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1. S imilarly , the C l ay ton Act define s the persons to whom it ap p l ies as “c orporations and associations existi ng under or authorized by the laws of e ither the Unit ed S tates, t he laws of any of the Te rritories, the la

ws of any State , or the laws of

any fo re ig n c ountr

y .” 15 U. S.C. § 12. N o w h e r e d o e s e it h e r s tatute e mp lo y

th e s o rt of e xpans ive langua g e that we and oth e r c ir c uit s have hel d to un e qu i v o c a l l y a

b r o g a t e tr i b a l s o v e r e i g ni m mun i ty.
In deter mining whe ther sover eig n immunit y is abrog ated,

“ we may loo k to sta te so ve re ig n immunit y pr e c e de nt t o h e lp deter mine how ‘explicit’ a

n abrog ation must be . . .” Krystal , 357 F.3d at 1056. “A g ener al authorization for suit in fede ral co urt i s n o tth e k i n d

o f u n equ i v o ca l s t at u t o ry l an gu age sufficie nt to abrog ate the Eleventh Amendment.

. . . ” Id. at 1060 (citations and e mphasis omitt ed).
Our de cision in Sa nd

e rs v . B ro wn , 504 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007), is instructive. Sa nd e rs involve d a ch alleng e to the MSA. See id. a t 90 6. Th e pla int if fs a ll eg e d th a t th e MSA violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. See id. We held that states are immune f rom antitrust liabilit y

for enter ing into and implementing the MSA. See id. at 915 (“ Th e [state a c tio n] im mun ity do ctr in e pr ote c ts m os t st a te laws and a c tio ns fr om a

nti tr us t li a bil ity

. . . . ” ); se eals o Pa rk e r v . B ro wn , 317 U.S. 341, 3 5 1 (1943) ( explaining that “[t] he Sherma

n Act make s no mention of the stat e as such, and g ives no hint that it was int ended to restra in state ac tion or off icial ac tion directed by

a state” ). The district cour t thus corr ectly relied on Pa rk

e r to h o l d that fede ral a

ntitrust law d o e s n o ta

b r o g a t e th e T r i b e ’ s s o v e r e i g ni m mun i ty.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 15

W e are no t pe rs ua de d th a t J e f f e r s o n C o u n ty Ph ar ma c e uti c al A ss’n v . A bb ott Lab s. , 460 U.S. 150 (1983), is the more applicable prec edent. J e ffe rso n Co un ty

involved a cha lleng e by

reta il pharmacists and pharmac ies to alleg ed pr ic e -f ixingby dr ugmanu fa c tur e rs and

ho sp ita ls o f t

he state university

. See id. at 152-53. The responde nts a rgue dthat the state purc hases we re exempt from fede ral a ntitrust law. S ee id. a t 1 5 3

. T h e Su p r e me Co urt c h ar a c te r ized the “nar row” issue as whe ther “state purcha ses for the purpose of competingag ainst private e nterprise -with the adv an tag e of discrim i n atory

price s-in the re tail market” are exempt from the price -fixing statute. Id. at 154 (footnote r efe renc e omi tte d) . In h e r d iss e nt, Justi c e O’ Conno r n ote d th a t Parker involved sovere ign immunity rathe r than a

n exemption from statutory provisions. See id. at 177 n.5 (O’ Connor, J ., dissenting)

. We a g ree with Justice O’Connor’s de scription of Parker an d c o n c lu d e th a t th is c a s e is mo r e ak in to P arker tha n to J e f f e r s o n Cou nty

. As in Parker , th is c a se inv olv e s a challeng e to the sovereig n immunit y of t he Tribe rathe r than a c h al leng e to the Tribe ’s claimed statutory exemption. Ac c or din g ly , w e a g re e wi th t he d istri c t c ourt that Parker

is th e m o r e r e l e v an tl e g a l a

u th o r i ty. Miller, L anpher e, and Matheson also ar g ue that fe dera l antitrust law abr og ates tribal imm unity beca use t he Sherma

n Act is a statute of

g ener al app l i cability , and none of the exceptions articulated in Donovan v . Coeur d’Alen e T ribal Fa rm , 751 F.2d 11 1 3 (9 t h Cir. 1985), applies. Donovan c ouns e ls that fe de ra l st a tut e s o f g e ne ra l a pp lic a bil ity a pp ly to Ind ian tr ibe s unle ss o ne of thr e e e xce pti on s a

pp lie s:M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

16 (1) the l aw touches e x clusive rig hts of se lf -g ov e rn anc e in p ur e ly int

ra mur a l matte rs ; (2) the a pplication of the l aw to the tribe would abrog ate r ights guara nteed by Indian tr e a ti e s ; o r

( 3 ) th e r e is p r o o f

b y le g is lati ve hi st or y or so me oth e r m e ans that Co ng re ss intended the la w n o t to apply to I ndians on their re serva tions. I n any of these thr ee sit ua tio ns , Co ng re ss m

us t expressly a

p p l y a statut e to I

nd ians be for e we wi ll h old that it re a c he s th e m. Id. at 1116 (c itation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).
As we ha

ve explained, fe dera l antitrust laws are not intended to apply to I ndian t ribes. This conc lusion forec loses the argument that fede ral antitrust la w is of g ener al applicability

vis-a-vis the Tribe. Indeed, a s the district court proper ly ruled, Donovan ’s thi rd e xce pti on is co ns ist e nt w ith the pre cede nt underlying our conclusion t

hat Cong ress did not inc lud e Ind ian tr ibe s w ith in t he e nti ties su

bje c t to anti tr

us t law.
B e c a us e Mil le r, L anp he re , a nd Mathe so n f

a ile d to succe ssfully

challeng e the Tr ibe’s sover eig n i m m u nity , we aff irm the di strict court’s holdingthat it lacked subjec t matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the cl aim s asserte d ag ainst the Tribe.
3. Im m unit y o f Tr iba l Offic ial s Miller, L an p h ere, and Mathe son argue that the triba l of fi c ia ls a re no t c ov e re d b y

tr iba l so ve re ig n immun ityM I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 17

beca use they assess unconstit u t i o nal taxes. The Tribe counter s that the offic ials act in their of ficial c apac ity

when they col l ec t the Tribe’ s tax es, which the officia ls have the authority to impose.
A suit ag ainst the Tribe and its officia ls “in their offic ial capa cities is a suit ag ainst the tribe [and] is barr ed by tribal sovere ign immunity

unless that immunit y

has bee n abrog ated or wa ived.” Linneen v. Gila R iver Indian Cmty. , 276 F.3d 48 9, 49 2 ( 9th

Cir . 2 00 2) . “T ri ba l so ve re ig n immun ity extends to t ribal off

icials whe n ac ting in their of ficial capa city and within the s co p e of their a uthority . . . .” Cook , 548 F. 3 dat 727 (c itation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] plaintiff ca nnot circumve nt tribal immuni ty by the sim ple e xpe die nt o f n amin g an o ff ic e r o f t he Tr ibe as a defe ndant, rather than the sovere ign entity

. . . .” Id. (citation and interna l quotation marks omitted).
As t h e district court found, the tr ibal officia ls are protec ted by

the Tribe’ s sovere ign immunit y b ecause they we re a c tin g purs ua

nt t o the Tr ibe ’s a

uth or ity . “ Th e po we r t o ta x tra ns a c tio ns oc c ur

ri ngon tr us t lan ds and

signif ic antl y involving a tr ibe or its members is a f undamental attribute of sovere ignty

which the t ri b es reta in unless divested of it by fede ral lawor nec essary implication of their depe ndent status.” W

as hingto n v. Co nfed

e ra te d Tr ibe

s o f Co lv ill e Indian Rese rvation , 447 U.S. 134, 152 (1980) (c itation omitted).
The Tr ibe ’s so ve re ig n immun ity thu s e xten ds to i ts officia ls who were actingi n their off icial ca pacities a nd within the scope of the ir authority when they

taxed transac tions occurr ing on the rese rvation. See Cook, 548 F.3d a t 72 7; see also Confederated Tribes , 447 U.S

. at 152.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT

18
Moreove r, to the extent the complaint seeks monetar y relief , such cla ims are ba

rre d under Ex Parte Young

. See Salt Rive r Project Agr. Im

p. and Power Dist. v. Lee , 672 F. 3 d1176, 1181 (9 th C ir . 2 01 2) . We the re fo re re je c t Mi lle r’ s, L anpher e’s, a

nd Matheson’s a t t empt to circumve nt tribal immunit y by naming tribal officia ls a s defe ndants. See Cook, 548 F.3d at 727.
In th e a lte rn a tive , th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso c or

re c tly c o n c lu d e d

th a t r e s ju d ic a ta

b ar s th is a c ti o n
. “ Re s ju d icata, a lso known a s c la im p re c lus ion , a pp lie s o nly

wh e re the re is (1) an id e nti ty

of c la ims , ( 2) a

fi na l ju dg me nt o n th e me ri ts, and (3 ) p ri v i ty

betwee n parties. . . .” Turtl e Island Re sto ra tio n Ne two rk v
. U. S. De p’ t of Sta te , 673 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2012) (c i tation and interna l quotation marks omitted). Res judicata ba

rs this a ction. L ike the suits in state court and tr iba l c ourt , th e c la ims in t his c a se in vo lv e a lle g e dly unlawful c iga

rette taxes a

rising from the sales at Matheson’ s store on the Puy allup rese rvation. Ther e is thus a n identity of claims. See Turtle Island , 673 F.3d at 917-18. L ikewise, the state and tr iba l c ourt s r eache d fin a l ju dg me nts and Mil le r i s in privity with L anpher e and Matheson g iven the substantial commonality

of th eir intere sts. Se e Tah oe -S ie rra Pr es. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe R eg ’l Planning Agency , 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003).
IV
. CO NC LU SION
As we have de sc ri be d, thi s a c tio n f a ils fo r f our r e a so ns
. F i r s t , th e T r i b e h a s n o tw a i v e d i t s tr i b a l s o v e r e i g ni m mun i ty. Neither the cig arette tax contract nor the dispute resolution c la u s e in th e c o n tr a c t c o n s ti tute s a w a iv e r b y th e T ribe.M I LL ER V
. W R I GHT 19

Second, contr ary

to Mill er’ s, L anpher e’s, a nd Matheson’s argument, fede ral a

ntitrust law does not abro g ate triba l so ve re ig n immun ity . Thi rd , the Tr ibe ’s so ve re ig n immun ity extends to the tribal of

ficials who we re a cting in their offic ial capacities and pur suant to the Tribe’ s authority . Four th, the d i s t rict cour

t corre ctly

held that re s judicata ba

rs this action in l ig ht o f t

he pr ior lit ig a tio n in

state and tr iba l c ourt s. AF F IRMED.