N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KONIAG, INC ., a

n Ala ska c orporation and M IC HAEL P. O’ C ONNELL,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. KUR T KANAM , individua lly and a s Triba l Attorne y for the Nat ive Villa ge of Karluk a nd OR B IE M ULLINS, individua lly

and a s Villa ge of Ka

rluk Triba l C ourt Judge for the Karluk Triba l C ourt for the Native Villa ge of Ka rluk, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 16-35632

D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00077-SLG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Sharon L. Gle a son, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 6, 2017 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : WARDLAW , C LIFTON, a n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Kurt Ka nam and Orbie M ullins a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt holding tha

t the y do not ha ve the right to e xe rc ise , re ta in, or thre a te n triba l c ourt jurisdic tion ove r Appe lle e s Konia g, Inc
. an d M ic ha e l O’ C onne ll. W e a ffirm
. Kanam and M ullins ha

ve forfe ite d the ir a

rgum e nts. The y fa ile d to oppose
any of the re le v ant m otions file d be fore the distric t c o urt. Inste a d, the y ra ise the ir obje c tions to the

distric t c o urt’ s ruling on triba l-c ourt jurisdic tion for the first tim e
on a ppe a l . Abse nt e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s, we will not he ar argum e nts on
a ppe a l tha t we re not ra i se d be fore the distric t c ourt. Brow n v . Ge n. Te l. C o. of C al. , 108 F.3d 208, 210 n.1 (9th C ir. 1997); Unite d State s v . Ore gon , 769 F.2d 1410, 1414 (9th C ir. 1985). Ka nam and M ullins ha

ve not a tte m pte d to show
e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s. The triba l c o urt’ s la c k of jurisdic tion ove r Konia g a nd O’ C onne ll he re is
c le ar, in a ny e ve nt. Ge ne ra lly , “ the inhe re n t sove re ign powe rs of a

n India n tribe ” do not e x te nd to nonm e m be rs. Montana v . Unite d State s , 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). B ut a

tribe m ay

“ re gula te . . . the a c tivitie s of nonm e m be rs who e nte r
c onse n sua l re lationships with the tribe or its m e m

be rs” on its re s e rva tion, “ e ve n on non-India n fe e la nds” ; a nd “ e xe rc ise c i vil a

uthority ove r the c onduc t of nonIndia ns on fe e la

nds within its re se rva tion whe n tha t c onduc t thre a te n s or ha s som e

2dire c t e ffe c t on the politic a l inte grity , the e c o nom ic se c urity , or the he a lth or

we lfare of the tribe
. ” Id. a t 565-66. It is undispute d tha

t Konia g a nd O’ C onne ll a

re not m e m

be rs of the Native Villa ge of Ka

rluk. As for thetwo Montana e xc e ptions, the Ala ska Na t ive C la im s Se ttle m e nt Ac t , 43 U.S.C . § 1601 e t se q. , e lim i nat e d a ll but oneIndia n re se rva tion in Ala ska , the Anne tte Isla nd R e se rve of the M e tla

k a tla India ns. Alask a v . N ativ e Vill. of Ve ne tie Tribal Gov ’t , 522 U.S. 520, 524 (1998). Tha t re se rva tion is not a

t issue he re . And, e ve n

if the c onse nsua l re lat ionship e xc e ption a pplie d, Ka

nam and M ullins ha

ve not shown the

e xiste nc e of suc h a re lationship. On its fa c e , the
c ha lle nge d m e rge r involve d Ka rluk Na t ive C orporation, a

m ong othe rs. Ka

nam and M ullins ha

ve ne ve r e xpla ine d the re lationship be twe e n the Ka rluk Na tive C orporation a

n d the Nat ive Villa ge of Ka rluk. In sum , the Ka

rluk Triba l C ourt doe s not ha

ve jurisdic tion ove r Konia g or O’ C onne ll. The argum e nts tha

t Ka nam and M ullins ra ise for the first tim e on a ppe a l do not c ure this de fe c t. Ka

nam and M ullins a

re not e ntitle d

to sove re ign im

m unity , a s the i m m unity of the tribe doe s not e xte n d to its offic ia ls. Santa C lara Pue blo v

. Martine z , 436 U.S. 49, 59 (1978). B e c a use of the triba l c o urt’ s obvious la c k of jurisdic tion, Konia g a

nd O’ C onne ll we re not re quire d to e xha ust the i r c la im s in triba l c ourt. N

at’l Farme rs Union Ins. C os. v . C row Tribeof Indians , 471 U.S.
3845, 856 n.21 (1985). The doc t rine of unc le an ha

nds, e ve n if it we re fa c tua lly
a pplic a ble , doe s not c re a te jurisdic tion whe re it othe rwise doe s not e xist. Se e ge ne rally Dollar Sy

s., Inc . v . Av c ar Le asing Sy s., Inc
. , 890 F.2d 165, 173 (9th C ir. 1989) (e xpla ining thedoc trine ). AFFIRM E D.

4