Title: SENECA TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA
Citation: 2011 OK 15, 253 P.3d 53
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: March 8, 2011

SENECA TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA Annotate this Case SENECA TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA 2011 OK 15 Case Number: 107431 Decided: 03/08/2011 Consol. w/107432; 107433 & 107434 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. SENECA TELEPHONE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, d/b/a WHITE LOON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION I ¶0 Native American Tribe claims sovereign immunity in a tort action where phone lines were damaged in excavation work for another tribe. Phone company filed four separate small-claims suits, and recovered judgments totaling $13,648.93, with $600 in costs. Subsequently, Phone company also recovered an attorney's fee of $34,655.09. Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on appeal. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS Leonard M. Logan, Donna Louise Smith, Michael T. Torrone, LOGAN & LOWERY L.L.L.P., Vinita, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee, O. Joseph Williams, Rachel T. Csar, PITCHLYNN & WILLIAMS, P.L.L.C., Norman, Oklahoma, and Robin C. Lash, GENERAL COUNSEL, MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Miami, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellant. COMBS, J. ¶1 The Defendant/Appellant, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (Tribe), d/b/a White Loon Construction Company, seeks review of the trial court's judgment and the Court of Civil Appeals opinion in favor of Plaintiff/Appellee, Seneca Telephone Company (Seneca), in Seneca's four consolidated small claims actions asserting tort claims arising from Tribe's repeated damage to Seneca's underground telephone lines during excavation on property owned in fee or in trust by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma (Shawnees). ¶2 Seneca provides telephone service to a travel plaza, social services center, gaming casino, and housing subdivision owned by the Shawnees. The Shawnees hired Tribe to perform excavation work. In the course of performing the excavation work, Tribe cut Seneca's underground telephone lines on four separate occasions damaging the underground telephone cables. Seneca filed four separate small-claims suits and, over Tribe's sovereign immunity defense, recovered judgments totaling $13,648.93, with $600 in costs. Subsequently, Seneca also recovered an attorney's fee of $34,655.09. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶3 A determination of jurisdiction is a question of law. The proper method to raise a question of jurisdiction is by a motion to dismiss. Questions of law are reviewed de novo, which involves a plenary, independent and non-deferential examination of the trial court's rulings of law. Citizen Pottawatomi Nation v. Norton, 248 F3d 993, 996-97 (10th Cir. 2001), held, with regard to sovereign immunity, it reviews de novo the "legal ruling on when a party can assert its sovereign immunity and the district court's determination of subject matter jurisdiction" See also, Bittle v. Bahe, ANALYSIS ¶4 The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed following the preemption analysis of Rice v. Rehner, ¶5 We must disagree. The United States Supreme Court in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, In this economic context, immunity can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, ¶ ¶7 In Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 726 (9th Cir. 2008), a tort victim was involved in a traffic accident with an employee of a tribal corporation, acting within the scope their employment. The victim, Cook, asserted that tribal corporations who compete in the economic mainstream should not enjoy the same immunity from suit given to the tribes, themselves. Cook claimed it was unfair to allow tribes to create commercial corporations that can compete in the market place while enjoying immunity from the legal liability that all other corporations must face. The 9th Circuit Court, however followed their earlier decision in Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir.2006), in concluding that tribal corporations, acting as an arm of the tribe, enjoy the same sovereign immunity granted to a tribe itself. The record here supports that Defendant/Appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, a federally recognized Indian tribe. ¶8 The harsh reality in the present case, is that Seneca did not have the opportunity to negotiate a waiver of the sovereign immunity with the negligent party, but was an innocent third party to the negligence of a tribal enterprise. This result leaves Seneca without a remedy against Tribe for their damages under our law, even when the assertions of negligence by the tribal enterprise are correct. (Subject of course to filing within the tribal court system of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma). (a) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States, and to all persons engaged within the United States in such communication or such transmission of energy by radio, and to the licensing and regulating of all radio stations as hereinafter provided; but it shall not apply to persons engaged in wire or radio communication or transmission in the Canal Zone, or to wire or radio communication or transmission wholly within the Canal Zone. The provisions of this chapter shall apply with respect to cable service, to all persons engaged within the United States in providing such service, and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such service as provided in subchapter V-A. (b) Except as provided in sections 223 through 227 of this title, inclusive and section 332 of this title, and subject to the provisions of section 301 of this title and subchapter V-A of this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply or to give the Commission jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier, (emphasis added) or (2) any carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication solely through physical connection with the facilities of another carrier not directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect common control with such carrier, or (3) any carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication solely through connection by radio, or by wire and radio, with facilities located in an adjoining State or in Canada or Mexico (where they adjoin the State in which the carrier is doing business), of another carrier not directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect common control with such carrier, or (4) any carrier to which clause (2) or clause (3) of this subsection would be applicable except for furnishing interstate mobile radio communication service or radio communication service to mobile stations on land vehicles in Canada or Mexico; except that sections 201 to 205 of this title shall, except as otherwise provided therein, apply to carriers described in clauses (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection. ¶10 Reviewing this statute, it is apparent that the United States Congress has not authorized suit against the Tribe in this matter. There is no mention of Indian tribes in the statute and no express waiver of sovereign immunity in Indian Country. The Tribe has not waived its immunity. This is not like the fact patterns in Rice v. Rehner, CONCLUSION ¶11 In the present matter the Tribe was not engaged in any telecommunication activity. The Tribe was engaged in excavation work for another tribe on land held in fee as well as in trust by the United States Government. The United States Congress has not unequivocally waived sovereign immunity for the activities involved in the instant matter. The Tribe has not waived its sovereign immunity at any level in the present case and all issues herein presented are fully satisfied by our finding of immunity and, therefore, the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated and the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS ¶12 CONCUR: COLBERT, V.C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, REIF, COMBS, GURICH, JJ. ¶13 DISSENT: TAYLOR, C.J., WATT, J. FOOT