# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 37 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ram on a Two Sh ie ld s; Mary Loui se Defen de r W il so n, i nd iv id ua ll y an d o n b eh al f

of ot he rs si m il arl y

si tu at ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Sp en cer Wil ki ns on , Jr.; Ric k Woo dwa rd ; Ro be rt Zi nk e; Dako ta -3 E&P Co m pa ny,

LLC, Now kn own as WPX Energ y W il li st on , LLC; Zen erg y , Inc .; Dak ot a-3 , LLC;

Dak ot a-3 Ene rg y

, LLC; Zen erg y Pro pe rti es 6 Ft

. Bert ho ld All ot te e, LLC; Jo hn Doe

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

In di ge no us Law and Po li cy Cen te r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amicu s o n Beh al

f o f Ap pe ll an t(s )

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 9, 2 01 4

Fil ed : J un e 1 2, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

App el la nt s Ram on a Two Sh ie ld s an d Mar y Lou is e Defen de r W il s o n are

In di an s wit h in te res ts in la nd al lo tt ed to th em by th e Uni te d St at es un de r th e Dawes

Act of 18 87

. Su ch la nd is he ld in tru st b y t h e g o v e r n m en t, bu t m ay be le as ed by

al lo tt ees

. Two Sh ie ld s an d Defen de r W il so n le as ed oi l an d ga s m in in g rig ht s on th ei r

al lo tm en ts to ap pe ll ee co m pa ni es an d affi li at ed in di vi du al s wh o w o n a se al ed bi d

au ct io n co nd uc te d by th e Bo ard of In di an Affai rs (BIA) in 20 07

. Su bs eq ue nt to th e

au ct io n, ap pe ll an ts ag reed to te rm s with th e win ni ng bi dd ers

, th e BIA app ro ve d t he

le as es

, an d ap pe ll ees so ld th em fo r a la rg e pr of it

. App el la nt s la te r fil ed th is pu ta ti ve

cl as s act io n in th e Dis tri ct of No r t h D a k o t a, cl ai m in g th at th e Uni te d St at es ha d 1

br each ed it s fid uc ia ry du ty by ap pr ov in g th e le as es fo r th e oi l an d ga s m in in g rig ht s,

an d th at th e de fen da nt bi dd ers ai de d, ab et te d, an d in du ced th e Uni te d St at es to br each

th at du ty. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e Uni te d St at es was a req ui red pa rty

whi ch co ul d no t be joi ne d, bu t wit ho ut whi ch th e act io n co ul d no t pr oc eed in eq ui ty

an d go od co ns ci en ce, an d di sm is se d th e cas e. App el la nt s ch al le ng e th a t d i s m is sa l.

Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed be lo w, we affi rm

.

I.

Two Sh ie ld s an d Defen de r W il so n are In di an s who ho ld al lo tm en ts on th e

Bak ke n O i l S h a l e Fo rm at io n in th e Fo rt Bert ho ld Res erv at io n in th e st at e of Nor th

Dak ot a. Two Sh ie ld s is a m em be r of th e Thre e Affi li at ed Trib e s

, a u n i o n of th e

Man da n, Hid at sa

, an d Arik ara Nati on s whi ch op erat e as on e tri ba l un it lo cat ed on an d

ne ar th e Fo rt Bert ho l d R es erv at io n. Defen de r W il so n is a m em be r of th e St an di ng

Ro ck Si ou x Trib e. Fo ll owi ng a se al ed bi d au ct io n, Two Sh ie ld s le as ed th e oi l an d ga s

m in in g rig ht s fo r 32 0 acre s of an al lo tm en t to th e hi gh bi dd er Ze n e r g y Pro pe rti es

.

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Unite d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nort h Dak ot a.

-2

-Fed eral reg ul at io ns pr ov id e fo r a m in im um royalt y rat e o f 16 b %; lo wer rat es m ay

be pe rm it te d if fo un d to be in th e be st in te res t of th e In di an m in eral own er. 25 C.F.R.

§ 21 1.4 1( b)

. Two Sh ie ld s rece iv ed a le as e bo nu s of $4 51 .48 pe r acre an d an ag reed

18 % ro y al ty rat e. Two S h i e l d s a l so en te red in to an ot he r le as e wit h Zen erg y

Pro pe rti es fo r an ad di ti on a l 32 0 acre s of an al lo tm en t; Defen de r W il so n is al so an

own er and he ir in tru st of th is pr op ert y

. The le as e pr ov id ed fo r a bo nu s of $4 00 pe r

acre an d an 18 % ro y al ty rat e. Befo re th ei r le as es ha d op erat iv e ef f e c t

, t h e BIA

cert ifi ed as req u i r e d b y st at ut e th at th ey were "i n th e be st in te res t of th e In di an

m in eral own er." See 25 U.S.C. § 39 6 (g ran ti ng th e Secr et ary of th e In te rio r au th or it y

to pr om ul ga te reg ul at io ns reg ard in g le as in g of m in in g in te res ts on al lo tt ed la nd s) ; 25

C.F.R. § 21 2.2 0 (reg u l a t i o ns pe rm it ti ng Secr et ary to reject win ni ng bi d an d

read ve rti se a m in eral l a n d t r a c t fo r sa le "i f th e Secr et ary d et erm in es th at it is no t in

th e be st in te res t of the In di an m in eral own er to accep t any of th e bi ds "). The le as es

were ap pr ov ed by the BIA in Decem be r 20 07 an d F eb ru ary 20 08

.

App el l e e Sp en cer W il ki ns on is a m em be r of th e Thre e Affi li at ed Trib es an d

man a g e s a cas in o on th e Fo rt Bert ho ld Res erv at io n. App el la nt s al le ge th at he a n d

ap pe ll ee Ro be rt Wo o dwa rd de vi se d a sc he m e to ob ta in fu nd in g fro m an un kn own

th ird pa rty, t o us e th at fu nd in g to acq ui re oi l an d ga s le as es fro m th e pl ai nt iff s, an d

to se ll th e oi l an d ga s le as es fo r a pr of it

. The ir co mp l a i n t a ll eg es th at de fen da nt s

fu rth ered th is pl ot by us in g po li ti cal in flu en ce to se le c t B I A su pe rin te nd en ts who

wou ld ap pr ov e th e le a s e s a n d e ns ur e el ect io n of a tri ba l ch ai rm an who wou ld ha ve

th e Thre e Affi li at ed Trib es pr es su re the BIA to app ro ve th e le as es

. App el la nt s als o

al le ge th at th e BIA di d no t de ny ap p r o v a l of or ren eg ot ia te a si ng le le as e on be ha lf

of Fo rt Bert ho ld al lo tt ees

, th ereb y br each in g it s fid uc ia ry du ty to m ax im iz e th e va lu e

ob ta in ed by Ind ia n a ll ot te es an d t o e ns ur e th e le as es were i n t he ir b es t i nt eres ts

.

A ppe lla nts fi le d thi s cl as s act io n on Nov em be r 26

, 20 12

, al le gi ng Nor th Dak ota

co m m on la w c la im s o f a i d i n g an d ab et ti ng , t or ti ou s in du cem en t, an d co ns pi racy t o

ai d an d ab et br each es of fid uc ia r y d u t y i mp o se d by fed eral la w. The y al so rai se d

-3

-cl ai m s fo r co ns tru c t i v e t r us ts an d an acco un ti ng

. Each cl ai m ot he r th an th e

acco un ti ng cl ai m al le ge s as an el em en t th at th e Uni te d Stat es br each ed it s fid uc ia ry

du ty to th e In di an pl ai nt iff s an d t h a t t he de fen da nt s kn ew of

, en co ur ag ed

, or

wro ng fu ll y pr of

it ed fro m th at br each

. The co m pl ai nt na m ed as de fen da nt s Dak ot a-3

,

Dak ot a-3 E&P Co

., Dak ot a-3 Ene rg y

, Zen erg y

, I n c

. , an d Zen erg y Pro pe rti es 6 Ft

.

Bert ho ld All ot te e an d Sp en cer W il ki ns o n Jr

., Ri ck W oo dwa rd

, an d Ro be rt Zin ke

( w h o are al le ge d to be affi li at ed wit h, or own ers of

, th e Dak ot a-3 an d Zen e r g y

co m pa ni es ). It al so na m ed th e Jo hn Doe de fen da nt who was al le ge d to ha ve pr ov id ed

fu nd in g for th e sc he m e. It al le ge s th at de fen da nt s ul ti m at el y le as ed ro ug hl y 85 ,00 0

acre s of la nd

, bu nd le d th e le as es to ge th er fo r sa le

, an d th en so ld th e le as es in 20 10 to

a th ird pa rty fo r $9 25 m il li on

. It cl ai m s th at whi le de fen da nt s rece iv ed ov er $1 0,0 00

pe r acre fro m th ei r own sa le , t h e y p a i d so m e pu ta ti ve cl as s m em be rs le as e bo nu se s

of on ly $2 00 pe r acre or le ss

. In th is act io n al lo tt ees se ek to reco ve r fro m th e le ss ees '

pr of it s.

On Feb ru ary 1, 20 13

, ap pe ll an ts fil ed a se pa rat e co m pl ai nt in th e Uni te d St at es

Co ur t of Fed eral Cl ai m s, in whi ch th ey so ug ht m on et ary da m ag es fro m t h e Uni te d

St at es fo r al le ge d br each es of fid uc ia ry du ty th at oc cu rred whe n th e BIA ap pr ov ed th e

le as es at i ss ue he re. W hi le th at cas e was pe nd in g, de fen da nt s i n t he fed eral di st ric t

co ur t fil ed a Ru le 12 (b )(7 ) m ot io n to di sm is s t hi s ca se for fai lu re t o jo in th e Uni te d

S t a t es as a req ui red pa rty un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 19

, in ad di ti on t o

ot he r m ot io ns to di sm is s un de r Ru le 12

. The Uni te d St at es fil ed an am ic us br ie f th at

arg ue d it was a req ui red pa rty whi ch co ul d no t be joi ne d an d th at th e cas e sh ou ld be

d i sm is se d. On Nov em

be r 26

, 20 13

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a Ru le 12 (b )(7 )

di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re to joi n th e Uni te d St at es aft er co nc lu di ng th at th e Uni te d St at es

ha d an in te res t in th e li ti ga ti on an d th at th e cas e co ul d no t go fo rward wit ho ut it

. The

ot he r m ot io ns to di sm is s were de ni ed as m oo t. App el la nt s n o w a pp eal fro m th e

di st ric t co ur t's di sm is sa l o f th ei r cl ai m s.

-4

-Su bs eq ue nt to or al arg um en t in ou r co ur t, th e fed eral cl ai m s co ur t is su ed a

Feb ru ary 6, 20 15 de ci si on in Two Sh ie ld s v

. U n i t e d St at es

, 11 9 Fed

. Cl

. 76 2, 78 8

(Fed

. Cl

. 20 15 )

, w h i c h g r an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Uni te d St at es

. In th at

de ci si on th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e cl ai m s pl ai nt iff s rais ed ha d bee n in cl ud ed in a

cl as s act io n se tt le m en t reac he d in earl ie r li ti ga ti on

. Id

. at 77 8; se e Co be ll v. Sal azar

,

67 9 F.3 d 90 9, 91 2 (D.C. Ci r. 20 12 ) (aff irming di st ric t co ur t ap pr ov al of cl as s

se tt le m en t ag reem en t). Its Feb ru ary de ci si on in Two Sh ie ld s is cu rren tl y on ap pe al

,

bu t su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g fro m th e pa rti es b e f o r e ou r co ur t ha s be en rece iv ed

ad dr es si ng th e q ue st io n o f an y po te nt ia l re le va nc e h ere.

II.

The fed eral di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e Uni te d St at es is a req ui red pa rty

in th is cas e whi ch can no t be joi ne d an d th at di sm is sa l is th eref or e req ui red un de r Ru le

19

. Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 19

. Ru le 19 (a) de fin es "[r ]equ ire d pa rty," an d R u l e 19 (b )

pr ov id es fact or s to co ns id er to de te rm in e whe th er di sm is sa l is req ui red whe n joi nd er

of su ch a pa rty cann ot feas ib ly be acc om pl is he d. Se e id

.

A.

Ru le 19 (a)( 1) pro vi de s t ha t a p art y is req ui red to be joi ne d i f fea si bl e if :

(A) in th at pe rs on 's ab se nc e, th e c o u r t c an no t acco rd co m pl et e rel ie f

am on g e xi st in g p art ie s; or (B) th at pe rs on cl ai m s an in te res t rel at in g to th e su bjec t of th e act io n an d

is so si tu at ed th at di sp os in g o f th e act io n i n t he pe rs on 's a bs en ce m ay : (i) as a pra ct ic al m at te r im pa ir o r im pe de th e p ers on 's a bi li ty to

pr ot ect th e in te res t; or (ii ) le av e an ex is ti ng pa rty su bjec t t o a s ub st an ti al ris k of

in cu rr i n g do ub le

, m

ul ti pl e, or ot he rwis e in co ns is te nt

ob li ga ti on s b ecau se of t he in te res t.

-5

-F e d

. R

. C i v

. P. 19 (a). W e rev ie w de no vo co nc lu si on s of la w un de rlyin g a di st ri c t

co ur t's Ru le 19 (a) de te rm in at io n, Gwart z v. Je ffer so n Mem 'l Hos p. Ass 'n, 23 F.3 d

14 26 , 14 28 (8t h C ir. 1 99 4)

.

An am ic us br ie f fil ed by th e Uni te d St at es in th e d i st ric t co ur t cl ai m ed

nu m ero us in te res ts rel at in g to th e s u b je ct m at te r of th is act io n. The se in te res ts

in cl ud e de fen se of th e le as in g de ci si on s by th e BIA an d th e Secr et ary of th e In te rio r,

th e co rrec t in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of oi l an d ga s le as in g st at ut es an d

reg ul at io ns

, an d en su rin g th at In di an le ss ees are no t su bjec t to co m pe ti ng ob li ga ti on s.

The Uni te d St at es po in ts ou t th at th e Secr et ary of th e In te ri o r h a s a d mini st rat iv e

au th or it y ov er th e le as es whi ch ap pe ll an ts cl ai m ha ve be en un la wfu ll y ap pr ov ed an d

wou ld be free to co nt in ue to de m an d pa y m en t on th em ev en if th ey were de te rm in ed

un la wfu l b y

a fed eral co ur t i n a n a ct io n t o wh ic h t he Uni te d S ta te s i s n ot a pa rty.

The di st ric t co ur t no te d th at in or de r to pr ev ai l on th ei r cl ai m s of ai di ng an d

ab et ti ng or in du ci ng a b reac h of fid uc ia ry du ty, le ss or s ne ces sa ril y wou ld ha ve to

pr ov e th at th e Uni te d St at es ha s act ed il le ga ll y an d br each ed i t s f i d u c ia ry du ty in

ap pr ov in g th e le as es

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e fed eral in te res ts in ad m in is te rin g

th e le as es an d ov ers eei ng th e gr an t of ne w le as es wou ld be affe ct ed by su ch a fin di ng

an d th us th e Uni te d St at es is a req ui red pa rty. App el la nt s arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d be cau se th e on ly rel ie f th ey se ek is to reco ve r m on et ary da m ag es fro m ap pe ll ees

fo r th ei r ha vi ng cau se d t he Uni te d S ta te s t o b reac h i ts fid uc ia ry du ty.

O u r earl ie r de ci si on in Nich ol s v. Ry sa vy, 80 9 F.2 d 13 17 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 8 7 ) i s

in st ru ct iv e o n t he po te nt ia l i nt eres ts of th e Uni te d Stat es

. In Nich ol s, we dis m is se d

In di an al lo tt ee cl ai m s un de r Ru le 19 fo r fai lu re to joi n th e Uni te d St at es

. Id

. at 13 20

.

The al lo tt ees th ere were de sc en da nt s of In di an s who ha d be en g i v e n " f o r ced fee

p a t e n ts " on la nd whi ch ha d be en rem ov ed fro m tru st st at us an d ti tl ed to th e i r

an ces to rs

, wit ho ut reg ard fo r whe th er th ei r an ces t o r s req ue st ed th at act io n. Id

. at

13 21

– 22

. Su ch la nd ha d pr ev io us ly be en he ld in tru st by th e Uni te d St at es in or de r

-6

-to pr ot ect th e In di an s from at te m pt s by ot he rs to ch eat th em of th ei r ne wly acq ui red

pr op ert y

. Id

. at 13 21

. Afte r rece iv in g th ei r fo rced fee pa te nt s, th e an ces to rs of th e

Nich ol s pl ai nt iff

s lo st or tra ns ferr ed ti tl e to th ei r la nd

. Id

. at 13 23

. The fed eral po li cy

t o g ran t fo rced fee pa te nt s was la te r ab an do ne d, an d th e Nich ol s de sc en da nt s

su bs eq ue nt ly s ue d th e Uni te d St at es , t he st at e of So ut h Dak ot a

, on e of it s co un ti es

,

an d pri va te pa rti es who ha d ob ta in ed th e fo rm erl y al lo tt ed la nd s. Id

. at 13 20

, 13 23

.

In th at act io n t he de ced en ts so ug ht ret ur n o f po ss es si on

, ret ur n of t he all ot te d l an ds

to tru st st at us , and da m ag es . Id. at 13 20

.

Our co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e Nich ol s c l a i ms a ga in st th e Uni te d St at es were

ti m e ba rred be cau se th e st at ut e of li m it at io n s ha d ru n. 80 9 F.2 d at 13 31

. Afte r th e

Uni te d St at es was di sm is se d, we un de rto ok a Ru le 19 an al y si s an d co nc lu de d th at th e

cas e co ul d no t go fo rward wit ho ut th at pa rty. Id

. at 13 34

. W e ex pl ai ne d th at "[t ]he

Uni te d S t a t es , a s th e al lo tt in g ag en t, is th e ap pr op ria te de fen da nt in su it s in vo lv in g

th e rig ht to an al lo tm en t." Id

. at 13 33 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W e no te d

th at t h e pr es en ce of th e Uni te d St at es was ne ces sa ry in pa rt be cau se an y ru li ng

de cl ari ng th at th e fo rced fee pa te nt s were gr an te d il le ga ll y co ul d req ui re ta ki ng ba ck

ti tl e to th e la nd in tru st . Id. W e qu ot ed wit h ap pr ov al th e di st ric t co ur t's reas on in g

th at th e pl ai nt iff

s' " c l a i m s ha ve far reac hi ng so ci al

, eco no m ic

, an d po li ti cal

ram ifi cat io ns

. . . . Ti t l e to m il li on s of acre s of la nd is cl ou de d, th us affe ct in g real

es ta te tra ns act io ns

, pr ob at e pr o c e e d i ng s, an d cred it av ai la bi li ty." Id

. W e al so

ob se rv ed th at

th e res ul t of th is su it , on th e m eri ts , wou ld de pe nd en ti rel y on whe th er

th e Uni te d St at es act ed le ga ll y or il le ga ll y in gr an ti ng f e e p at en ts

. . . . If th e Uni te d St at es is su ed th e pa te nt s le ga ll y

, th en ap pe ll an ts ' act io n is

gr ou nd le ss

. In sh or t th e go ve rn m en t's li ab il it y can no t be tri ed be hi nd it s

ba ck

.

-7

-I d

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Si m il arl y in th e cas e no w be fo re ou r

co ur t, th e qu es ti on of whe th er the Uni te d Stat es ha s acte d il le ga ll y in ap pr ov in g th e

oi l an d ga s le as es fo r pl ai nt iff s' al lo tm en ts "ca nn ot be tri ed be hi nd it s ba ck ." See id

.

App el la nt s se ek to di st in gu is h Nich ol s be cau se th e al lo tt ees in th at c as e ha d

so ug ht ret ur n of lan ds to tru st st at us

, whi ch wou ld ha ve req ui red th e go ve rn m en t to

ta ke ti tl e to th e la nd

, se e 80 9 F.2 d at 13 33

, whi le on ly da m ag es are s o u g h t h e re.

Nev ert he le ss

, th e Nich ol s p l a i n t i ffs ha d al so arg ue d "t ha t co m pl et e rel ie f [wa]s

av ai la bl e wit ho ut th e Uni te d St at es

, fo r th e la nd co ul d be ret ur ne d to th e al lo tt ees an d

da m ag es pa id ." Id

. at 13 31

. The Nich ol s co ur t co ul d ha ve av oi de d th e pl ai nt iff s'

req ue st th at th e Uni te d St at es ret ur n th ei r al lo tm en ts to tru st st at us by rem an di ng fo r

th e di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er whe th er th e la n d s h a d b e en il le ga ll y tra ns ferr ed un de r

th e f o r c e d fee pa te nt pr oc ed ur e. If th ey ha d be en

, th e co ur t co ul d ha ve or de red

da m ag es pa id to th e al lo tt ee de sc en da nt s fo r wro ng f u l p o s s e s si on

. Of co ur se

, an y

po te nt ia l de te rm in at io n ab ou t th e le ga li ty of pr io r act io ns by th e Uni te d St at es wou ld

no t ha ve be en bi nd in g si nc e it was no t a pa rty in Nich ol s. See Pro vi de nt Trad es m en s

Ban k & Trus t Co

. v. Pat te rs on

, 39 0 U.S. 10 2, 12 2 (1 96 8) ("[ T] he re can be no bi nd in g

ad jud ic at io n o f a pe rs on 's rig ht s i n t he ab se nc e o f th at pe rs on ."). We dis m is se d t he

cas e aft er de te rm in in g it co ul d no t pr oc eed wit ho ut th e pr es en ce of th e Uni te d St at es

.

Si m il arl y

, an y fin di ng th at th e U n i t e d S ta te s ha s br each ed it s fid uc ia ry du ty

he re woul d im

pl ic at e in te res ts si m il ar to th os e whi ch req ui red di sm is sa l in Nich ol s.

W it ho ut th e pa rti ci pa ti on of th e Uni te d St at es

, an y de te rm in at io n th at pa rti cu la r la nd s

h a d b e en il le ga ll y ti tl ed wou ld po te nt ia ll y cl ou d th e va li di ty of m an y of th e l a n d

gr an ts ap pr ov ed by th e go ve rn m en t. See 80 9 F.2 d at 13 33

. App el la nt s arg ue th at th e

Uni te d St at es can no t be in di sp en sa bl e si m pl y be cau se it s co nd uc t is at is su e, ci ti ng

Edm on ds on v. St at e of Neb

. ex rel

. Meyer, 38 3 F.2 d 12 3, 12 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 67 ) (in jury

to a th ird pa rty's rep ut at io n al on e is in su ffi ci en t t o c on fer u po n i t a m an da to ry rig ht

to in te rv en ti on un de r Ru le 24 ). The po te nt ia ll y far re ach in g e ffec ts of a ny deci si on

ab se nt go ve rn m en ta l pa rti ci pa t i o n sh ow ho w di ffer en t th e in te res ts of th e Uni te d

-8

-St at es are fro m th os e of a typic al th ird pa rty whi ch cl ai m s no i n te res t be y on d

co nt es ti ng all eg at io ns ab ou t i ts own im pr op er co nd uc t.

Oth er co ur ts ha ve reco g n i z e d t h at th e Uni te d St at es ha s an in te res t ev en

wit ho ut be in g joi ne d in act io ns whi ch "i nd ire ct ly at ta ck " it s ad m in is tra ti ve de ci si on s.

Bo le s v. Green ev il le Hou s. Auth

., 46 8 F.2d 47 6, 4 79 (6 th Ci r. 19 72 ). Fo r ex am pl e,

th e Bo le s pl ai nt iff

s ch al le ng ed an ur ba n ren ewal pl an ap pr ov ed by th e Dep art m en t of

Hou si ng an d Urb an Dev el op m en t (HUD) in an act io n a ga in st a lo cal go ve rn m en ta l

en ti ty. Id

. at 47 7. Alt ho ug h Ru le 19 was no t ad dr es se d in th e di st ric t co ur t, th e Si xt h

Ci rcu i t c o n c l u de d th at HUD was arg ua bl y in di sp en sa bl e an d was "m os t he si ta nt to

se t th e pr eced en t of al lo win g th e po li ci es an d pr act ic es of HUD or an y ot he r fed eral

ag en cy to be ov erh au le d by th e jud ic ia ry wit ho ut at le as t affo rd in g th e ag e n c y t h e

op p o r t u n it y to be he ard in su pp or t of it s pr es en t op erat io n." Id

. at 47 9. Thi s

reas on i ng is he lp fu l in th e cas e be fo re ou r co ur t, an d we co nc lu de th at th e Uni te d

St at es is a req ui red pa rty whic h m us t b e joi ne d u nd er Ru le 19 (a) i f fea si bl e.

App el la nt s ob

ject th at th e Uni te d St at es can no t be a req ui red pa rty un de r Ru le

19 be cau se it is a joi nt to rtf eas or an d th e ru le ne ve r ap pl ie s to su ch a pa rty. In su pp or t

th ey ci te a di ffer en t pr in ci pl e of la w—t ha t "i t is no t ne ces sa ry fo r al l joi nt to rtf eas or s

to be na m ed as de fen da nt s i n a si ng le laws ui t." Tem pl e v . Sy nt he s C or

p., Ltd., 498

U.S. 5, 7 (1 99 0)

. In Tem pl e, th e Co ur t ci te d th e Adv is or y Co m m it te e Not es to Ru le

19 whi ch in di cat e "a to rtf eas or wit h th e us ua l 'joi nt -an d- se ve ral ' li ab il it y is m erel y a

pe rm is si ve pa rty to an act io n ag ai ns t an ot he r wit h li ke li ab il it y ." Id

. (q uo ti ng Fed

. R.

Ci v. P. 19 ad vi so ry co m

m it te e's no te to 19 6 6 a mend m en t). To be su re, th e Uni te d

S t a t e s do es no t cl ai m in th is act io n "t he us ua l" joi nt an d se ve ral li ab il it y no r " l i k e

li ab il it y " wit h th at of th e ap pe ll ees

. I n s t e a d

, it cl ai m s an in te res t in th e

ad m in is tra ti on

, en fo rcem en t, an d in te rp ret at io n of it s la ws an d reg ul at io ns

. Tem pl e

di d no t es ta bl is h th at Ru le 19 la ck s ap pl ic at io n to al l who are al le ge d to sh are li ab il it y

f o r a wro ng

. In st ead , t he ru le in st ru ct s co ur ts to ex am in e th e in te res ts of a n a b s e n t

-9

-pa rty in an effo rt t o de te rm in e whe th er "as a pr act ic al m at te r" it s ab il it y to pr ot ect

th os e in te res ts wil l b e h in de red . Fed . R. Civ . P. 19 (a)( 1) (B)( i).

An il lu st rat iv e cas e in w h i c h a n ab se nt joi nt to rtf eas or was ne ces sa ril y

im pl ic at ed is Lake r Airwa y s, In c. v. Bri ti sh Airwa y s, PLC, 1 82 F.3d 84 3 (1 1t h C ir.

19 99 ). The re, Lak er ha d su ed Br i t i sh Airwa y s (BA), fo r co ns pi rin g wit h Airp or t

Co or di na ti on Ltd (ACL) to res erv e p refe ren ti al tak e o ff and la nd in g sl ot s in Bri ti sh

ai rp or ts

. Id

. at 84 5. All eg ed co ns pi rat or ACL was a pr iv at e Eng li sh co rp or at io n

ap po in te d by th e go ve rn m en t to ov ers ee al lo cat io n of ai rp or t ti m e sl ot s, a ta sk whi ch

ha d be en as su m ed by th e Uni te d Kin gd om un de r in te rn at io na l tra ns at la nt ic tre at ie s.

Id

. at 84 5– 46

. The Elev en th Ci rcu it co nc lu de d th at ACL was a req ui red pa rty who se

in te res ts were "m or e si gn ifi can t th an t h o se of a ro ut in e joi nt to rtf eas or ." Id

. at

84 7– 48

. I t r e a s on ed th at a joi nt to rtf eas or is a ne ces sa ry pa rty if it "em erg es as an

act iv e p a r t i ci pa nt in th e al le ga ti on s m ad e in th e co m pl ai nt th at are cri ti cal to th e

di sp os it io n of th e im

po rta nt is su es in th e li ti ga t i o n

. " I d

. at 84 8 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Si m il ar to th e al lo tt ee ap pe ll an ts he re, Lak er arg u e d th at ACL's

in te res ts were no t im

pl ic at ed be cau se it so ug ht on ly m on et ary da m ag es fro m BA fo r

it s co ns pi rat or ia l co nd uc t an d no rel ie f fro m ACL. Id

. at 84 9. Alt ho ug h th e req ue st ed

rel ie f m ig ht no t ha ve di rect ly im pl ic at ed ACL, th e co ur t reas on ed th at Lak er's cl ai m s

ne ces sa ril y req ui red an ev al ua ti on of ACL's act io ns

, "t he re b y s u bs ta nt ia ll y

im pl ic at in g ACL's in te res ts ." Id . at 8 48

.

Lik e th e co ur t in Lak er Airwa y s, we reject an i n t erp ret at io n of th e Su pr em e

Co ur t's Tem

pl e de ci si on th at wou ld cat eg or ic al ly ba r co ns id erat io n of in te res ts a joi nt

to rtf eas or m ay ha ve be y on d th os e of joi nt an d se ve ral li ab il it y

. To pr ev ai l he re, Two

Sh ie ld s an d Defen de r W il so n m us t pr ov e th at th e Uni te d St at es br each ed it s fid uc ia ry

du ty to en su re th at th e m in in g l e a s es th ey si gn ed were in th e be st in te res ts of th e

In di an s. Fo r th e reas on s pr ev io us ly st at ed th e Uni te d St at es h as an in te res t in th at

de te rm in at io n, an d it s ab il it y to pr ot ect it s in te res t wou ld be im pa ire d or im

pe de d by

-1 0-it s ab se nc e. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at th e Uni te d S ta te s i s a r eq ui red pa rty whic h

sh ou ld be joi ne d i f fea si bl e u nd er Ru le 19 (a).

B.

Si nc e th e Uni te d St at es ha s no t waiv ed so ve rei gn im m un it y

, it can no t be joi ne d

in th is act io n, an d we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's Ru le 19 (b ) de ci si on to di sm is s fo r

fai lu re to joi n an in di sp en sa bl e pa rty un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd

. Sp iri t Lak e Trib e v. Nort h Dako ta

, 26 2 F.3 d 73 2, 74 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Onc e a pa rty

is de te rm in ed t o b e r e q u i red

, Ru le 19 (b ) pr ov id es fo ur fact or s th at co ur ts are to

co ns id er in de ci di n g "wh et he r, in eq ui ty an d go od co ns ci en ce, th e act io n sh ou ld

pr oc eed am on g th e ex is ti ng pa rti es or s h o ul d be di sm is se d." Fed . R . C iv . P . 1 9( b)

.

The se fact or s ar e:

(1 ) th e ex te nt to w h i c h a jud gm en t ren de red in th e pe rs on 's ab se nc e

m ig ht pre jud ic e th at pe rs on or t he ex is ti ng pa rti es ; (2 ) th e ex te nt to whi ch an y pre jud ic e co ul d b e le ss en ed or a vo id ed by:

(A) p ro te ct iv e p ro vi si on s i n t he jud gm en t;

(B) s ha pi ng th e rel ie f; o r (C) o th er m eas ur es ; (3 ) whe th er a jud gm en t ren de red in th e pe rs on ' s a b s en ce wou ld be

ad eq ua te ; an d

(4 ) whe th er th e pl ai nt iff wou ld ha ve an ad eq ua te rem ed y if th e act io n

were d is m is se d fo r no njo in de r.

Id

.

The Ru le 19 in qu iry is a co nt ex t se ns i t i ve on e whi ch m ay va ry fro m cas e to

cas e. See Pat te rs on

, 39 0 U.S. at 11 8– 19

. In th e sp eci fic co nt ex t of a n i mm un e

so ve rei gn en ti ty th at is a req ui red pa rty no t am en ab le to su it

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

ex pl ai ne d th at th e act io n m us t be di sm is se d if th e cl ai m s of so ve rig n im m un it y are no t

-1 1-fri vo lo us an d "t he re is a po te nt ia l fo r in jury to th e in te res ts of th e ab se nt so ve rei gn ."

Rep ub li c o f th e Ph il ip pi ne s v . Pim en te l., 5 53 U.S. 85 1, 8 67 (20 08 ).

Th e h ol di ng of th e Su pr em e Co ur t in Pi m en te l m ig ht ap pe ar to di m in is h t h e

si gn ifi can ce of th e ot he r Ru le 19 (b ) fact or s in a cas e su ch as th is

, bu t ou r

co ns id erat io n o f t h o s e fact or s at th is st ag e le ad s to th e co nc lu si on th at th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by it s de ci si on to di sm is s. Alt ho ug h ap pe ll an ts

arg ue th at di sm is sa l wou ld de pr iv e th em of an y rem ed y ag ai ns t th e le ss ees

, th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s reco gn iz ed th at a de fen di ng pa rty ha s an in te res t in av oi di ng "s ol e

res po ns ib il it y fo r a li ab il it y he sh ares wit h an ot he r." Pat te rs on

, 39 0 U.S. at 11 0. W e

co ns id er thi s in te res t to be pa rti cu la rly st ro ng he re, whe re the wro ng fu l con du ct th e

ap pe ll ee le ss ees are al le ge d to ha ve co m m it te d was in du ci ng th e Uni te d S t a t e s t o

br each it s fid uc ia ry

du ty to en su re t ha t al l l eas es are i n t he Ind ia ns ' be st in te res t; all

li ab il it y is th eref or e co nt in ge nt up on ev al ua ti on of t he act io ns of t he Uni te d S ta te s.

Of si gn ifi can ce is th e fact th at th i s i s n o t th e on ly act io n ap pe ll an t al lo tt ees

ha ve br ou gh t rel at in g to th e ap pr ov al of th e oi l and ga s leas e ag reem en ts th ey m ad e

wit h a pp el le es . Th ey al so br ou gh t a d am ag e act io n a ga in st th e Uni te d S ta te s i n t he

C ou rt of Fed eral Cl ai m s. Tha t co ur t ha s no w gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e 2

Uni te d St at es aft er de te rm in in g th at ap pe ll an ts ' le as e cl ai m s ha d be en ad dr es se d in a

se tt le m en t ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t whi ch was affi rm ed in Co be ll v. Sal azar

,

67 9 F.3 d 90 9 (D.C. Ci r 20 12 ). Two Sh ie ld s v. Uni te d St at es

, 11 9 Fed

. Cl

. at 78 8.

Alt ho ug h th e cl ai m s co ur t de ci si on in Two Sh ie ld s is cu rren tl y on ap pe al

, it ap pe ars

ap pe ll an ts wil l ha ve ha d an ad eq ua te al te rn a t e r em ed y reg ard le ss of it s ou tc om e.

Sh ou ld th ey pr ev ai l th ere an d su m m ary jud gm en t be rev ers ed

, th ey m ig ht pr oc eed to

tri al ag ai ns t th e Uni te d St at es fo r th ei r al le ge d br each of fid uc ia ry du ty da m ag es

. If

Si nc e jud gm en t ha s be en en te red in th at cas e, we ne ed no t reac h th e ap pe ll an ts ' 2

arg um en t th at th e d is tri ct co ur t s ho ul d h av e co or di na te d th e in st an t acti on wit h th at

fil ed in th e cl ai m s co ur t.

-1 2-th e cl ai m s co ur t de ci si on is affi rm ed

, th ei r rel ie f wil l app ro pr ia te ly be li m it ed to th e

te rm s o f th e Co be ll se tt le m en t ag reem en t whi ch th e co ur t fo un d ap pl ic ab le to th ei r

cl ai m s.

A p pe ll an ts arg ue th at th e Uni te d St at es wou ld su ffer no pr ejud ic e fro m i t s

ab se nc e i n t he cas e si nc e th ey cl ai m ap pe ll ees ha ve si m il ar in te res ts to it an d th e

in cen ti ve to m ak e "ev ery arg um en t on th e m eri ts th at th e ab se nt [Un it ed St at es ] wou ld

or co ul d m ak e." Hen ne v. Wr i g ht

, 90 4 F.2 d 12 08

, 12 12 n.4 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). If a

de fen da nt can no t be ex p e c t e d " to art ic ul at e th e go ve rn m en t's po si ti on on it s be ha lf

in it s ab se nc e," ho wev er, the "p reju di ce to th e go ve rn m en t is ob vi ou s." Sp iri t Lake

Trib e, 26 2 F.3 d at 74 6. App el la nt s' cl ai m th at th e go ve rn m en t's in t e r e s ts wil l be

ad eq ua te ly pr ot ect ed by th e de fen da nt le ss ees do es no t wit hs ta nd sc ru ti ny. W hi le on e

p o t e nt ia l de fen se fo r th e le ss ees wou ld be th e arg um en t th at no fid uc ia ry du ty was

owe d or b r e a c he d, th ey are al le ge d to be co co ns pi rat or s wit h th e Uni te d St at es an d

th eref or e ha ve st ro ng in cen ti ve s t o c ha ract eri ze an y bre ach as res ul ti ng so le ly fro m

th e g ov ern m en t's in de pe nd en t ac ti on an d ju dg m en t.

Two Sh ie ld s an d Defen de r W il so n as se r t th at an y pr ejud ic e to th e in te res t of

th e Uni te d St at es is le ss en ed be cau se it rem ai ns free to in te rv en e un de r Ru le 24 (b )(2 ).

R ul e 19 (b ) req ui res a co ur t to ex am in e whe th er a cas e can pr oc eed "i n eq ui ty an d

g o o d c o n s c i en ce" if joi nd er is no t feas ib le

, Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 19 (b ), bu t it do es no t

ad dr es s th e hypo th et ic al in te rv en ti on of an im m un e pa rty whi ch is no t su bjec t to

joi nd er. The Uni te d St at es en joy s so ve rei gn im

m un it y fo r ap pe ll an ts ' cl ai m s an d can

de ci de it se lf wh en an d wh ere i t wan ts to in te rv en e.

III.

I n su m

, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t was well wit hi n it s di sc ret io n t o

di sm is s th is cas e aft er care fu l an al y si s of th e Ru le 19 fact or s, th e in te res ts of th e

-1 3-pa rti es

, an d th e in te res ts an d so ve rei gn im m un it y of th e Uni te d St at es

. The jud gm en t

of th e d is tri ct co ur t i s t he refo re af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-