This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 AUSTIN LAND DEVELOPMENT 2 COMPANY, INC., and its successors 3 in interest, BILL ESTES, M, M. & M 4 INVESTMENT CO., DARLAN 5 GATHINGS, and DESIREE GATHINGS, 6 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 7

v. NO. 32, 601 8 NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY, 9 a Navajo Nation Enterprise, 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 12 Karen L. Townsend, District Judge 13 Kelley Law Offices 14 Cody K. Kelley 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellants 17 Nordhaus Law Firm, LLP 18 Alan R. Taradash 19 Daniel I.S.J. Rey-Bear 20 Albuquerque, NM 21 for Appellee 222 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VANZI, Judge. 2
{1} Plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing the underlying proceedings. We 3 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to uphold the ruling of 4 the district court. Plaintiffs have f iled a memorandum in opposition, and the Navajo 5 Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA) filed a memorandum in support. After due 6 consideration, we affirm. 7
{2} Below, the district court concluded that the NTUA is immune from suit, such 8 that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In our notice of proposed summary 9 disposition we observed that the district court’s determination is well supported. See 10 Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque , 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 7, 132 N.M. 207, 46 P.3d 668 11 (“Without an unequivocal and express waiver of sovereign immunity or congressional 12 authorization, state courts lack the power toentertain lawsuits against tribal entities.”); 13 Armijo v. Pueblo of Laguna , 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12, 149 N.M. 234, 247 P.3d 1119 14 (“The locus of the Pueblo’s activity does not determine the applicability of tribal 15 sovereign immunity.”); Hoffman v. Sandia Resort & Casino , 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12, 16 148 N.M. 222, 232 P.3d 901 (“Corporate entities under tribal control are extended the 173 same sovereign immunity as the tribe itself.”); Sanchez v. Santa Ana Golf Club, Inc. , 1 2005-NMCA-003, ¶ 7, 136 N.M. 682, 104 P.3d 548 (“Tribal entities may not be sued 2 absent consent to be sued.”). 3
{3} In their memorandum in opposition we understand Plaintiffs to continue to 4 argue that the exercise of jurisdiction by the district court in this case would not 5 infringe upon tribal sovereignty, because this case involves a claim of trespass outside 6 of tribal lands and because it involves a tribal business enterprise’s relationship with 7 nonmembers. [MIO 3-5] However, as we previously observed in the notice of 8 proposed summary disposition and as the authorities cited above clearly reflect, 9 neither the locus of the disputed activity on privately-owned fee land or the status of 10 the NTUA as a business enterprise dimini sh the NTUA’s entitlement to immunity. 11 See Armijo , 2011-NMCA-006, ¶ 12; Hoffman , 2010-NMCA-034, ¶ 12. None of the 12 various out-of-state cases cited by Plaintiffs , addressing different issues in different 13 contexts, [MIO 3-5] persuade us that any departure from our own well-established 14 jurisprudence is warranted. We therefore conclude that the underlying proceedings 15 were properly dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See generally 16 Gallegos , 2002-NMSC-012, ¶ 36 (concluding that sovereign immunity precludes 17 subject matter jurisdiction and affirming the district court’s dismissal for lack of 18 subject matter jurisdiction). 194 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in the notice of proposed 1 summary disposition, we affirm. 2
{5} IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

__________________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6

_________________________________ 7 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 8

_________________________________ 9 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 10