FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 28, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 13 03 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 22 77 4- CV-UU MIC COSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMP ANY, Defen da nt -Co un te r Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 28 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT andCARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andBOW EN, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *
Honora ble Dudley

H. B owen, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ge org ia, sitting by

designation.TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e:

In20 04 , Krau s- And ers on Co ns tru ct io n C om pa ny (“ Krau s- And ers on ”) s ue d th e Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl or id a (the “ Trib e”) f orbre ach of c on tra ctin th e Mi cco su ke e Trib al Co urt. The Trib e d en ie d l iabi li ty andco un te rcl ai m ed , al le gi ng th atKrau s- And ers on was t he bre ach in g p arty . Fol lo win g atri al on th e m eri ts , th e Trib al Co urt d en ie d Kraus -An de rs on ’s cla im s an d, fi nd in g fo r th e Trib e on it s co un te rcl ai m , award edth e Trib e a jud gm en t o f $1 .65 m il li on . Kraus
And ers onpe ti ti on edth e Trib e’s Bu si ne ss Co un ci l fo r le av e to ap pe al th e jud gm en t to th e Trib e’s Gen eral Co un ci l, wh ic h a ct s as th e Trib al Co urt o f App eal s. The 1 Co un ci l d en ie d Kraus -An de rs on ’s pet it io n. Krau s- And ers on refu se d t o s at is fy th e Trib al Co urt’s jud gm en t, s o t he Trib e br ou gh t s ui t ag ai ns t Kraus -An de rs on in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a to en fo rce i t. As an a ffi rm at iv e d efen se , Krau sAnd ers onall eg edth at , inde nyin g i ts pe ti ti on forlea ve to ap pe al th e Trib al Co urt’s jud gm en t, the Bu si ne ss Co un ci l d en ie d i t due pro ces s o f la w, th ereb y ren de rin g t he jud gm en t v oi d. Oncro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t, the di st ric t co urt,

We refe r to the Tribe ’s Gene ral Council as the Tribal Court of Appea ls. Under the 1 Miccosukee Criminal and Civil Code, the B usiness Council has discretion to deter mine whether to allow the Tribal Court of A ppeals to hea

r an a ppeal of a Triba l Court judgment.

2rel y in g o n p rin ci pl es of c om it y , hel d t he jud gm en t u ne nf or ceab le an d g ran te d Krau s- And ers on su m

m ary jud gm en t. The Trib e n ow ap pe al s. We reve rs e an d
rem an d the cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt wi th th e in st ru ct io n t ha t i t d is m is s t he cas e fo r la ckof s ub

ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . I. A. The Trib e, a fed eral ly recog ni zedInd ia n t rib e, ha s ap pr ox im at el y 55 0
m em be rs an d m ai nt ai ns it s re se rv at io n i n M ia m i-Da de Co un ty, Fl or id a. Krau sAnd ers onis a larg e Mi nn es ot a-b as edco ns tru ct io n c om pa ny tha t s pe ci al iz es in bu il di ng cas in o p ro pe rti es forInd ia n t rib es . 2 Krau s- And ers on an d t he Trib e n eg ot ia te d a ndsi gn edth ree c on tra ct s fr om 19 97 to 19 98 forth e co ns tru ct io n o f se ve ral bu il di ng s o n t he Trib e’s res erv at io n, in cl ud in g ares ort h ot el an d h al fway ho us e. The p art ie s ag reedto ba se th e th ree

3
co nt ract s o n t he Am eri can Ins ti tu te of Arc hi te ct s St an da rdFo rm of Ag reem en t

Fr om 1993 to 2003, Kraus-Anderson c ompleted more tha n $400 milli on in construction 2 projec ts for Indian tribes. The c ontrac ts were signe d on the followingdates: August 26, 1997, for the c onstruction 3 of a r esort hotel and c onvention cente r; September 13, 1997, f or the c onstruction of a ha lfway house, clinic, a

nd judicial building; and Septembe r 18, 1998, for the construc tion of a school. 3Bet weenOwneran d Des ig n/ Bu il de r (the “ AIA Form ”). Som e o f th e AIA Fo rm 4 pr ov is io ns were am en de d b y in te rli ne at io n; on e p ro vi si on , “ Arti cl e 1 0 Arb itrat io n,” was e li m in at edalt og ethe r. Altho ug h Kraus -An de rs on pre ferr edth at 5 cl ai m s b e res ol ve d p ur su an t t o t he arb it rat io n p ro cedur es of t ha t arti cl e, th e Trib e as se rte d tha t i t wo ul d wai ve it s s ov erei gn imm un it y on ly if Krau s- And ers on ag reedto us e th e Trib al Co urt as th e fo ru m forres ol vi ng co nt ractdi sp ut es . Kraus
And ers onrel en te d a nd , inli euof Art ic le 10 , th e p art ie s i ns ert edth e fo ll owi ng se ct io n i n Art ic le 14 : 14 .4.1 .2 Waiv er o f So ve rei gn Im m un it y . The [Tri be ] he reb y waiv es an y de fen se of s ov erei gn imm un it y fro m su itinMi cco su ke e Trib al Co urt i n c on ne ct io n wi th an y act io n o r pr oc eed in g, i nc lu di ng an y cl ai m , cro ss -cl ai m

or c ou nt ercl ai m , bro ug htby or ag ai ns t i t i n co nn ect io n wi th th is [co nt ract ] orany of the trans act io ns co nt em pl at edin th is [co nt ract ] . . . for an d o nl y with re sp ectto act io ns br ou gh t i n M ic co su ke e Trib al Co urt. [Th e Trib e] do es no t wai ve imm un it y in an y form foract io ns in an y

co urt (i nc lu di ng Mi cco su ke e Trib al Co urt) n otin co nn ect io n wi th th is [co nt ract ] oran y of t he tra ns act io ns co nt em

pl at edin th is [co nt ract ]. The AIA Form ’s cho ic e o f la w pro vi si on , “ Arti cl e 1 1 M is cel la ne ou s Pr ov is io ns ,” The pa rties used the 1985 e dition of the AIA For m, specifica lly

the “Par t 2 4 Agree ment—Final De sign a nd Construction.” Article 10 c ontained five sections. Section 10.1 stated that: 5 Claims, dis putes and other matters in question betwe en the pa rties to this P art 2 arisingout of or re lating to Par t 2 shall be dec ided by

arbitration in accor dance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the America n Arbitration Association then in ef

fec t unless the parties a gree otherwise.

4st at es , insec ti on11 .1, tha t “ [t]hi s Pa rt 2 sh al l b e g ov ern edby the law o f th e p la ce

whe re the W ork i s l oc at ed .” The p art ie s amend edsec ti on 11 .1 s o t ha t i t p ro vi de d th atPart2 wo ul d b e g ov ern edby “ subs ta nt iv e co nt ractlaws of t he Sta te of F lo rid a an d o th er s ub st an ti ve laws of t he Mi cco su ke e Trib e.” Inm id -1 99 9, the pa rti es be gan t o d is ag ree a s t o t he am ou nt s due un de r th e co nt ract s. Th e Trib e ref

us edto ho no r cert ai n i nv oi ces subm it te d b y Krau sAnd ers on , con te nd in g t ha t the co m pa ny hadov erch arg edforth e work i t h ad pe rfo rm edan d h adfai le d t o re m edy sev eral co ns tru ct io n d efec ts . Sett le m en t ne go ti at io ns en su ed , bu t the parti es were u nabl e to res ol ve th ei r di ffer en ces , and th e in vo ic es rem ai ne d unp ai d. B. On M ay 24 , 20 01 , Krau s- And ers on fil eda co m pl ai ntag ai ns t the Trib e in th e Trib al Co urt al le gi ng th at$7 ,07 7,6 04 .70 was due un de r th e co ntract s. Th e Trib e res po nd edwith aco un te rcl ai m an d s et -o ff, n ei th er o f whi ch sp eci fie d am on et ary am ou nt , bas edon Krau s- And ers on ’s all eg ed ly im pr op er o ve rch arg es an d
co ns tru ct io n d efec ts . On Ju ne 18 , 20 04 , fol lo win g d is co ve ry an d asi xt een -d ay be nc h tria l, the Trib al Co urt i ss ue d i ts “ Tria l Dec is io n,” a 16 6- pa ge do cu m en t tha t su m m ari zedth e ev id en ce an d s etforth th e co urt’s fi nd in gs an d c on cl us io ns . In i t,

5th e Trib al Co urt d en ie d Kraus -An de rs on ’s cla im s an d award edth e Trib e jud gm en t

in th e su m

of $ 1,6 54 ,99 8.8 8 o n i ts co un te rcl ai m . Krau s- And ers on fil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al to th e Mi cco su ke e Bu si ne ss Co un ci l o n J ul y

1, 2 00 4, as se rti ng th e fo ll owi ng cla im s o f erro r: t he Trib al Co urt (1 ) ex ceed edit s p owe rs ; (2 ) ren de reda de ci si on ba se d o n m athe m at ic al erro rs ; (3 )
ex cl ud edm at eri al ev id en ce an d p reju di cedKrau s- And ers on ’s abi li ty to p res en t i ts cas e; an d (4 ) was ge ne ral ly prejud ic edag ai ns t Kraus -An de rs on . The Bu si ne ss Co un ci l co ns id eredth es e as se rte d e rro rs an d re ach eda “ co ns en su s” th atth e Trib al Co urt co m

m it te d n o p ro cedur al erro r inreac hi ng it s d eci si on . On Ju ly 15, 2 00 4, th e Bu si ne ss Co un ci l n ot ifi edKrau s- And ers on th atitha d “ di sa ll owe d” it s ap pe al be cau se th e co m

pa ny “rai se [d ] no is su es m eri ti ng rev ie w” by the Trib al Co urt o f App eal s. C. Krau s- And ers on di d n otpa y an y po rti on of t he jud gm en t en te redag ai ns t i t. On No ve m

be r 2, 2 00 4, the Trib e co m m en cedth is act io n t o e nf or ce the Trib al Co urt’s jud gm en t. The Trib e’s co m pl ai ntall eg edth atth e d is tri ctco urt h adfed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 1, d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2, an d “ fed eral co m m onlaw o f co m it y

juri sd ic ti on ” u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 73 8. Aft er re ci ti ng th e co nt ractua l ev en ts th atledto th e Trib al Co urt ju dg m en t, 6th e co m

pl ai ntreque st edth e co urt t o “ fin d t ha t the Trial Deci si on (fi na l ju dg m en t) is en ti tl edto reco gn it io n, re gi strat io n, an d e nf or cem en t i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e ap pl ic ab le fed eral law an d [t o] en te r [an ] or de r rec og ni zi ng , reg is te rin g a nd
en fo rci ng th e Trib al Co urt’s Tri al Deci si on (fi na l ju dg m en t).” Init s an swe r, Krau s- And ers on ass ert ed , as a n a ffi rm at iv e d efen se , th atth e Trib al Co urt ju dg m en t was un en fo rceabl e b ecau se th e Bu si ne ss Co un ci l’s re fu sa l to all ow t he ap pe al de ni edKrau s- And ers on du e p ro ces s o f la w. Addres si ng th e co m pl ai nt ’s ass ert io n o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on , Krau s- And ers on di sa gr eed th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adjuri sd ic ti on un de r §§ 13 32 an d 1 73 8 b utadm it te d t ha t th e co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on un de r § 1 33 1 b ecau se it s an swe r co nt ai ne d ade fen se ba se d o n t he Due P ro ces s C laus e. The pa rti es ha vi ng joi ne d i ss ue , Krau s- And ers on m ov edth e co urt fo r su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon it s af firm at iv e d efen se . The co urt g ran te d i ts m ot io n in anord er en te redonMay 23, 2 00 7. Aft er s ta ti ng th atth e co m pl ai ntfai le d t o di sc lo se a ba si s fo r juri sd ic ti on un de r §§ 13 32 or 1 73 8, the co urt co nc lu de d t ha t

“ subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er thi s ac ti on , whi ch see ks th e en fo rcem en t o f a tri ba l co urt ju dg m en t ag ai ns t a n on -In di anpa rty, is b as edon fed eral co m m on la w,” an d t he refo re p res en te d afed eral qu es ti onem br acedby § 13 31 . The co urt th entu rn edto th e que st io n o f whe th er fu ll fai th an d c red itor c om ity was the 7ap pr op ria te fram ewo rkforan al y zi ng th e en fo rceabi li ty of th e Trib al Co urt’s

jud gm en t. The co urt o pt edforth e la tt er ap pr oa ch an d h el d t ha t the jud gm en t sh ou ldno t b e aff

or de d c om it y

be cau se th e Bu si ne ss Co un ci l was anin te res te d pa rty in t he li ti ga ti on an d i ts di sa ll owa nc e o f Krau s- And ers on ’s app eal co ns ti tu te d a d en ia l o f du e p ro ces s. Aft er the co urt en te reda fi na l ju dg m en t fo r Krau sAnd ers onin acco rd an ce wi th it s M ay 23 ord er, the Trib e to okth is ap pe al
. II. W e b eg in , as i n a ll ap pe al s, b y ask in g wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt h adsubjec t
m at te r juri sd ic ti on . See Grea t S. Fi re Pro of Hot el Co . v. J on es , 17 7 U.S. 4 49 , 45 3, 20 S. Ct. 6 90 , 69 2, 4 4 L. Ed. 8 42 (19 00 ) (“ On ev ery writof e rro r or ap pe al , th e fir stan d fu nd am en ta l que st io n i s t ha t o f juri sd ic ti on , firs t, o f th is co urt, an d t he n of th e co urt fr om

whi ch th e rec or d c om es .”). In t he co m pl ai nt , th e Trib e as se rte d 6 th ree b as es forjuri sd ic ti on : 2 8 U.S.C. § § 1 33 1, 1 33 2, an d 1 73 8. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t juris di ct io n l ay un de r § 1 33 1. We th eref or e co ns id er tha t juri sd ic ti on al ba si s fi rs t, the n a dd res s § § 1 33 2 and17 38
. A.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which provides that “c ourts of appe als . . 6 . shall have jurisdiction of a ppeals fr om all final dec isions of the district courts of the United States.” 8Altho ug h t he pa rti es ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t juris di ct io n l ie s u nd er

§ 1 33 1, we no ne th el es s h av e th e o bl ig at io n t o i nqui re s uasp on te in to whet he r th e

7 di st ric t co urt was co rrec t. See Ben de r v. Will iam sp ort Are a Sch . Dis t., 4 75 U.S. 53 4, 5 41 , 10 6 S . Ct. 1 32 6, 1 33 1, 8 9 L. Ed. 2 d 5 01 (19 86 ) (“ [E]very fed eral ap pe ll at e co urt h as a sp eci al ob li ga ti on to ‘ sa ti sf y it se lf n oton ly of it s o wn juri sd ic ti on , bu t al so th atof t he lo wer co urts in a cau se un de r rev ie w,’ ev enth ou gh th e p art ie s ar e p rep aredto co nc ed e it .”) (quo ti ng Mi tc he ll v. Maur er, 2 93 U.S. 23 7, 2 44 , 55 S. Ct. 1 62 , 16 5, 7 9 L. Ed. 3 38 (19 34 )); Fit zg eral d v . Seab oa rdSy s. R.R., In c., 76 0 F .2d12 49 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). Pu rs uantto § 1 33 1, d is tri ctco urts ha ve ori gi na l juris di ct io n o ve r “ al l ci vi l act io ns ari si ng un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on , laws , or t reat ie s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 33 1. “ [F]ede ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on do es no t ex is t m erel y be cau se an 8 A findingof jurisdiction under § 1331 is a c onclusion of law. 7 Under the “we ll-pleade d complaint rule,” 8 “[A] s uit arises under

the Constitut ion and laws of the United States only when the plaintiff’s stateme nt of his own cause of ac tion shows that it i s based upon those la ws or that Constitution. It is not enough that the plaintiff alleg es some anticipa ted def ense to his cause of

action and a sserts that the def ense is invalidated by

some provision of the Constitution of the United States.” Be nefic ial Nat’l B ank v. Ande rson, 539 U.S. 1, 6, 123 S. Ct . 2058, 2062, 156 L . Ed. 2d 1 (2003) (quotingL ouisvill e & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mot tley , 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S. C t. 42, 43, 53 L
. Ed. 126 (1908)) (alter ation in orig inal). Thus, in deter mining the pr esenc e of f

eder al question jurisdiction, we may

not, as Kra

us-Ander son impli ed in fra ming its answe r to the Tribe ’s complaint, consider its af firmative de fense based on the Due Proc ess Clause.

9In di antri be is a pa rty or the cas e in vo lv es a co nt ractwith a n In di antri be ,” Sto ck 9 W es t, In c. v. Co nf

ed erat edTrib es of t he Co lv il le Res erv at io n, 8 73 F.2d12 21 , 12 25 (9t h C ir. 1 98 9) ; a p la in ti ff’s co m pl ai ntst il l m

us t “ cl ai m

a ri gh t t o re co ve r un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on an d l aws of t he Uni te d S ta te s,” B el l v . Hoo d, 3 27 U.S. 67 8, 68 1, 6 6 S . Ct. 7 73 , 77 5, 9 0 L. Ed. 9 39 (19 46 ). Altho ug h t hi s i s n ota st rin ge nt st an da rd , a m ere i nc an ta ti on th atth e cau se of a ct io n i nv ol ve s a f ed eral qu es ti on is
no t al way s s uf

fic ie nt . Mur

ph y v. In ex co Oil Co ., 61 1 F .2d57 0, 5 73 (5t h C ir. 19 80 ); see ge ne ral ly 5 Ch arl es Alan Wrig ht& Arth ur R. Mi ll er, Fed eral Prac ti ce 1 0
an d P ro cedur e § 12 09 (3ded . 20 04 ). Bear in g i n m in d thi s s ta nd ard , we exa m in e whe th er the Trib e h as su ffi ci en tl y id en ti fie d aCo ns ti tu ti on al pro vi si on or f ed eral la w un de r whi chitcanreco ve r. 1. Des pi te th e co m

pl ai nt ’s lac k o f refe ren ce t o any dis cern ib le fed eral law, the di st ric t co urt i nv ok edit s § 13 31 juri sd ic ti on onth e th eo ry th ata cas e th at“ se ek s th e en fo rcem en t o f a trib al co urt ju dg m en t ag ai ns t a n on -In di anpa rty[ ] is ba se d
on fed eral co m

m on law.” Onap pe al , insupp le m en ta l b rie fin g t ha t we re qu es te d As noted in part I .A., supra, the contra ct her e spec ified it would be g overne d by Florida 9 and Triba l law. In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this 1 0 court a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 10fo ll owi ng ora l ar gu m en t, the Trib e an d Kraus -An de rs on si m il arl y rel y up on fed eral co m

m on law t o s up po rt f

ed eral qu es ti onjuri sd ic ti on . The Tri be arg ue s th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adjuri sd ic ti on ba se d o n t he “ qu in te ss en ti al ly feder al ch arac te r of

Nati ve Am eri can law” an d t ha t i ts “ cl ai m foren fo rcem en t o f a trib al jud gm en t o n n on -tr ib al lan d re li edex cl us iv el y on ‘ th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t’s lo ng st an di ng po li cy

of e nc ou rag in g t rib al sel f-g ov ern m en t.’” Krau s- And ers on ag rees th at“ th e ex is te nc e o f ab un da ntfed eral co m m on law p ert ai ni ng to Ind ia n Trib es is su ffi ci en t t o i nv ok e fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on .” W e th eref or e b eg in by
ex am in in g t he po ss ib il ity th atfed eral co m

m on law cr eat edjuri sd ic ti on pu rs ua ntto § 1 33 1. We con cl ud e th atitdi d n ot .

“ ‘[C] la im s fo un de d upo n fe de ral co m m on law as well as t ho se of ast atut ory or ig in ’” m ay

gi ve ris e to fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on . Nat’l Farm ers Uni on Ins . Co s. v . Cro w Trib e o f In di an s, 4 71 U.S. 84 5, 8 50 , 10 5 S . Ct. 2 44 7, 2 45 0– 52 , 85 L. Ed. 2 d 8 18 (19 85 ) (quo ti ng Ill in oi s v . Cit y of M il wau ke e, 40 6 U.S. 9 1, 1 00 , 92 S. Ct . 13 85 , 13 91 , 31 L. Ed. 2d71 2 (1 97 2) ). The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear, ho wev er, tha t v ag ue ass ert io ns by Ind ia n- tri be pl ai nt iff s re ga rd in g fe de ral co m

m on la w to supp ort fe de ral qu es ti onjuri sd ic ti onwil l n otsu ffi ce. InInyo Co un ty v. Pai ut e-Sh os ho ne Ind ia ns , 53 8 U.S. 7 01 , 12 3 S . Ct. 1 88 7, 1 55 L. Ed. 2d93 3 (2 00 3) , th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t m erel y rel y in g o n t he “ fed eral co m m on law o f 11In di anaffa irs ” d oe s n otclarif y “ wha t fe de ral law, i f an y , th e Trib e’s cas e ‘aris [es ]
un de r.’” Id. at71 2, 1 23 S. Ct. at18 94 (qu ot in g 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 31 )(al te rat io n i n or ig in al ). See al so W eek s C on st r., Inc . v. Og la laSio ux Hou s. Au th ., 79 7 F .2d

1 1 66 8, 6 72 (8t h C ir. 1 98 6) (“ [T]he fac t tha t the Hou si ng Aut ho rity is crea te d b y

an d op erat es on be ha lf o f anInd ian t rib e is no t al on e su ffi ci en t t o fi ndth e ex is te nc e o f a fed eral qu es ti on .”). Lik ewis e, he re, the Trib e h as fai le d t o e xp la in th e sp eci fic pr es cri pt io n o f fed eral co m m on law t ha t en ab le s i t t o m ai nt ai n a n a ct io n t o e nf or ce a jud gm en t h an de d d own by a trib al co urt i n apro ceed in g t o wh ic h t he de fen da nt co ns en te d b y

co nt ract . 1 2 2. Altho ug h t he Trib e h as fai le d t o i de nt ify any fed eral law o r co ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n t ha t i ts su itari se s u nd er, we p ro ceedto co ns id er an ot he r way th atfed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on m ay be co nf erre d. Whethe r a trib al co urt h as ad jud ic at iv e

In Inyo County , the Court rema nded the c ase f

or “f ocused c onsideration” a s to “what 1 1 presc ription of fede ral c ommon law enable s a tribe to maintain an a ction for de clar atory and injunctive relief

establishing its sover eign right to be fre e fr om state criminal proc esses.” 538 U.S. at 712, 123 S. Ct . at 1894. Her e, re mand would be f utile, beca

use weexplore all of the possibili ties based on the c omplaint’s alleg ations. The district cour

t concluded that it had jurisdiction under § 1331 based on N ational 1 2 Fa rmers a nd a “pe rsuasive”Ninth Circuit case, Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997). Wilson di scussed the “ quintessentially fede ral c hara cter

of Native Americ an law.” I d. at 813. Under

our view of

National F arme rs, other Supre me Court prec edent, a nd circ uit prece dent, the alleg ations in the complaint and the nature of I ndian law a

re insuff icient to confe r fe dera l jurisdiction for the re asons ar ticulated in this opinion.

12au th or it y

ov er n on m em

be rs pre se nt s a f

ed eral qu es ti on ba se d o n fe de ral co m m on la w. Plai ns Co m

m erce Ban k v . Lon g F am il y Land& Cat tl e Co ., __

U.S. __ , 12 8 S. Ct . 27 09 , 27 16 –1 7, 1 71 L. Ed. 2d45 7 (2 00 8) ; Io wa Mu t. In s. Co . v. LaPl an te , 48 0 U.S. 9 , 15 , 10 7 S . Ct. 9 71 , 97 6, 9 4 L. Ed. 2 d 1 0 (1 98 7) ; Nat ’l Farm ers , 47 1 U.S. at 8 52 –5 3, 1 05 S. Ct. at24 52 . In thi s s ect io n, we ex pl ai n wh y th is cas e is no t a ch al le ng e reg ard in g t he reac h o f In di anpo wer an d t ha t s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on do es no t ex is t o n t ha t b as is
. InNati on al Farm ers , th e Supr em e Co urt co m m en te d t ha t i t “ ha s fr eque nt ly be enrequi redto de ci de qu es ti on s co nc ern in g the ex te ntto whi ch Ind ia n t rib es ha ve ret ai ne d the po wer t o re gu la te th e affa irs of n on -In di an s.” 4 71 U.S. at 8 51 , 10 5 S . Ct. at24 51 . There , a tri ba l co urt en te reda de fau ltjud gm en t ag ai ns t a s ta te sc ho ol di st ric t, an d t he sch oo l d is tri ctso ug htan d re cei ve d a n i nju nc ti on fro m a fed eral di st ric t co urt p rev en ti ng furth er p ro ceed in gs in th e tr ib al co urt. Id . at 8 47 , 10 5 S . Ct. at24 49 . The Supr em e Co urt h el d tha t i n o rd er t o i nv ok e fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on , th e sc ho ol di st ric t h adto co nt en d t ha t the tri be ha d b een di ve st edof i ts so ve rei gn au th or it y to en te r a jud gm en t— iness en ce, tha t a d is pu te ex is te d o ve r th e ex te ntof t rib al po wers . Id. at85 2, 1 05 S. Ct. at24 52 . Becau se th e sc ho ol di st ric t co nt en de d t ha t fe de ral law “ di ve st edth e tr ib e o f th is asp ectof
so ve rei gn ty,” it s at is fie d t hi s fe de ral qu es ti on requi rem en t. Id . at 8 52 –8 53 , 10 5 S
. 13Ct . at 2 45 2. In pa rti cu la r, “ [t]he qu es ti on whethe r anInd ia n t rib e ret ai ns th e

po wer t o c om

pe l a n on -In di anpro pe rty owne r to subm itto th e ci vi l juris di ct io n o f a tr ib al co urt” ha d t o “ be an swe redby referen ce t o fe de ral law an d i s a ‘fed eral qu es ti on ’ un de r § 1 33 1.” Id. at85 2, 1 05 S. Ct. at24 52 . “ [A] feder al co urt m ay 1 3 de te rm in e u nd er § 13 31 whet he r a trib al co urt h as ex ceed edth e la wfu l l im it s o f it s juri sd ic ti on .” Id . at 8 53 , 10 5 S . Ct. at24 52
. Insu m , Nati on al Farm ers di ct at es th ata di sp ut e o ve r tr ib al co urt juris di ct io n is co ns id ereda di sp ut e o ve r tr ib al so ve rei gn ty, an d the refo re— li ke a di sp ut e o ve r tri ba l s ov erei gn ty—is a m at te r of fed eral law t o wh ic h § 13 31 ap pl ie s. Th is cas e, ho wev er, d oe s n otin vo lv e a d is pu te ov er the Trib al Co urt’s jur is di ct io n. Th atis , th e Trib e h as no t as ke d fo r a d ecl arat ory de cree to res ol ve a di sp ut e o ve r whe th er th e Trib al Co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to en te rta in Krau s- And ers on ’s cla im forpa ym en t
an d t he Trib e’s se t o ff an d c ou nt ercl ai m . Bot h s id es ag ree t ha t the Trib al Co urt po ss es se d s uc h ju ris di ct io n. Wha t the Trib e as ks is th atth e fed eral di st ric t co urt 1 4 Tribal sover eign immunit y was not at issue be causethe school district was 1 3 undisputedly

non-Indian and a

subdivision of the state of Montana. N at’l F arme rs Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe of I

ndians, 560 F. Supp. 213, 215 (D. Mont. 1983). A district court c annot enter tain a suit for a

decla ratory judgme nt unless there is a 1 4 “def inite and conc rete ” contr oversy , Aetna L ife Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240, 57 S. Ct. 461, 464, 81 L . Ed. 617 (1937), a nd, stated above , there is no controver sy over the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction in thi s case . Fur ther, unde r Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564–65, 101 S. Ct. 1245, 1258, 67 L . Ed. 2d 493 (1981), no c ontroversy could exist ; Montana plainly states that a nonmember , such as Kr aus-Ande rson, ca n consent to tribal cour

t jurisdiction by

contra ct. 14do m es ti cat e it s ju dg m en t ag ai ns t Kraus -An de rs on so th atitcanob ta in ex ecu ti on

of th e jud gm en t p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 9. A su itto do m es ti cat e a trib al jud gm en t d oe s n otst at e a cl ai m un de r fed eral law, wh ethe r st atut ory or c omm on law. Thus , th e d is tri ctco urt l ack ed§ 1 33 1 juris di ct io n un de r Nat io na l Farm ers to en te rta in th e Trib e’s co m pl ai nt . 3. Fi na ll y , we no te th ataltho ug h R ul e 8 (a) o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pro cedur e requi res a co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e a “ sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e gr ou nd s fo r th e co urt’s jur is di ct io n,” co urts ha ve sav edso m e co m pl ai nt s ev en th ou gh th ey

lac ke d ajuri sd ic ti on al st at em en t b ecau se th ey m ad e ref eren ces to fed eral law s uf

fic ie ntto pe rm itth e co urt t o fi nd§ 1 33 1 ju ris di ct io n. Cf . Gardne r v. Fi rs t Am . Titl e In s. Co ., 29 4 F .3d99 1, 9 94 (8th C ir. 2 00 2) (“ Ru le 8(a )(1 ) is
sa ti sf ie d i f th e co m

pl ai ntsay[s] eno ug h abo utjuri sd ic ti on to crea te so m e reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e co urt i s n otab ou t t o h ear acas e th atitis no t supp os edto ha ve th e p owe r to he ar.”) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n om it te d) . Here, th e co m

pl ai ntis de vo idof asi ng le cit at io n t o aCo ns ti tu ti on al pr ov is io n, a f

ed eral st atut e, or

a reco gn iz edth eo ry

of c omm on law as th e b as is for th e al le ga ti on th atth e Trib e’s cau se of a ct io n a ris es un de r fed eral law. Th e b arre n co m pl ai ntpro vi de d b y

th e Trib e g iv es us no in di cat io n o f ho w th e Trib e ex pe ct ed

15th e d is tri ctco urt t o re co gn iz e, reg is te r, an d e nf or ce the Trib al jud gm en t. See Pan Am . Petro le um

Co rp . v. Supe rio r Co urt, 3 66 U.S. 65 6, 6 63 , 81 S. Ct. 1 30 3, 1 30 7, 6 L. Ed. 2 d 5 84 (19 61 ) (fi nd in g i t “ im m at eri al
. . . th atth e p la in ti ff co ul d h av e el ect edto pro ceedon a fed eral gro un d. . . . If th e p la in ti ff d eci de s n otto in vo ke a fed eral rig ht , hi s cl ai m

be lo ng s i n ast at e co urt.”) (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d)
. The refo re, we fi ndno ot he r as cert ai nabl e b as is forjuri sd ic ti on un de r § 1 33 1. B. Hav in g c on cl ud edth at§ 1 33 1 d oe s n otpro vi de a ba si s fo r fed eral juri sd ic ti on in th is cas e, we no w tu rnto th e o th er b as es forfed eral juri sd ic ti on as se rte d i n t he co m

pl ai nt , §§ 13 32 an d 1 73 8. We canqu ic kl y rejectbo th po ss ib il it ie s. Fi rs t, as th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d re ga rd in g t he po ss ib il it y of d iv ers it y juri sd ic ti on , “ [t]he m ajor it y vi ew—f ol lo wedby every cou rt o f ap pe al s t ha t h as ad dr es se d t he is su e—i s t ha t uni nc or po rat edInd ia n trib es can no t s ue or b e su edin di ve rs it y un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2( a)(1 ) be cau se th ey are n otcit iz en s o f an y

st at e” (ci ti ng cas es ). Turn in g t o § 17 38 , th e Trib e as se rte d i n i ts co m pl ai ntth atth is st atut e—t he ful l fa ith a ndcred itst atut e—p ro vi de d an i nd ep en de ntba si s fo r

16subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . W e are acco rd in gl y face d wi th th e que st io n o f 1 5 whe th er, u nd er the cir cu m st an ces pre se nt edhe re, a caus e o f act io n s eek in g the
en fo rcem en t o f a trib al co urt ju dg m en t cr eat es anin de pe nd en t b as is of s ub ject
m at te r juri sd ic ti on . The cl ear a ns wer i s n o. Und er ci rcu itpre ced en t, i t i s l on g e st ab li sh edth at§ 1 73 8 d oe s n ot , st an di ng alo ne , con fer ju ris di ct io n o n afed eral di st ric t co urt t o d om es ti cat e a jud gm en t re nd eredby a court o f an ot he r juri sd ic ti on . HazenRes earc h, In c. v. Om eg a Mi ne ral s, In c., 49 7 F .2d15 1, 1 53 n.1 (5t h C ir. 1 97 4) . Sim il arl y , an app eal to co m it y do es no t, s ta nd in g a lo ne , creat e fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 1. 1 8B Ch arl es Alan Wrig ht , ArthurR. Mi ll er & EdwardH. Coo pe r, Fed eral Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e § 44 73 (2ded . 20 02 & Supp . 20 09 ). As the Six th Ci rcu itha s n ot ed , an a rg um en t tha t co m it y bri ng s ab ou t fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on “pu ts th e p ro ve rb ia l ca rt b efo re the ho rs e. . . . [W] he n a n a ct io n al read y res ts on fed eral qu es ti onjuri sd ic ti on , th e th eo ry of c om it y

canserve as a di sc ret io na ry

ba si s fo r a co urt t o d et erm in e whe th er a fo rei gnco un try cou rt’s
28 U.S.C. § 1738 provides, in releva nt part, that the a

uthenticated 1 5
rec ords and judicial pr ocee dings of any court of a

ny such State, Ter

ritory or Possession . . . shall have the same f ull faith and cr edit in ever y court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usa g e in the cour ts of such State, Ter

ritory or Possession from which they are taken. 17jud gm en t s ho ul d b e g iv enpre cl us iv e effe ct .” Tave ras v. Tav eraz , 47 7 F .3d76 7,

78 3 (6 thCir . 20 07 ). Furth erm or e, th e Trib e n o l on ge r as se rts § 1 73 8 a s a b as is for fed eral juri sd ic ti on ; i n i ts supp le m en ta l b rie fin g, the tri be st at es , “ As we p oi nt ed
ou t atora l ar gu m en t, . . . th e Trib e d idno t re ly upo n § 17 38
. . . .” Ther efo re, we co nc lu de th atno ne of the pro vi si on s ci te d i n the Trib e’s co m pl ai nt—§ § 1 33 1, 13 32 , and17 38 —co nf

er s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on to th e d is tri ctco urt an d t hu s th e Trib e can no t en fo rce i ts m on et ary jud gm en t i n fe de ral co urt. 1 6 III. A fed eral co urt m

us t h av e subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti onto granta pa rty the rel ie f itsee ks . Con tra ry

to th e d is tri ctco urt’s h ol di ng , th e p art ie s h ere h av e n ot pr es en te d a ny bas is forsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . Accor di ng ly, th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s R EVERSED, andth e cas e is REMANDED with di rect io n t o th e d is tri ctco urt t o d is m is s fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on . SO ORDERED.

Although w e hold that the Tribecannot sue in fede ral c ourt to enfor ce the Tribal Court 1 6 judgme nt it obtained ag ainst Kraus- Ander son, the Tribe is not without a re medy —there are other possible way s for the Tribe to enfor ce the judgme nt. The Tribe can use tribal law proc edure s to obtain execution of the judg ment, seizing Kra us-Ander son’s assets, if a ny , in the rese rvation. The Tribe ca

n also seek e nforc ement of the judgme nt in state court and w ill prevail if the state court e lects to grant c omity to the Tribal Court’s judgment.

18