Opinion ID: 1199656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court should initially decide whether the tribe has waived its tribal immunity.

Text: ¶ 3 The ruling in Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. is that Indian tribes are immune from suit on contracts unless Congress abrogates the immunity or the tribe waives its immunity. [7] The summary judgment record considered in Manufacturing Technologies is discussed in part I of the opinion. [8] Id., 118 S.Ct. at 1702. Recognizing that the Manufacturing Technologies record was vague about some key details, the Court perused the face of the promissory note. [9] Noting the absence of an expression of governing law in the promissory note, the Court found that the note did not contain a waiver of the Tribe's immunity. [10] ¶ 4 This case, however, presents a waiver issue. The agreement between the Tribe and Gungoll is contained in two documents, the promissory note and the security agreement. Unlike the single document, the note, considered in Manufacturing Technologies, the security agreement in this case does specify a governing law and the remedies available under that law. As in Manufacturing Technologies, Gungoll's promissory note has a paragraph entitled Waivers and Governing Law, which does not specify a governing law. [11] Different from Manufacturing Technologies, Gungoll's evidence includes a security agreement [12] that specifies it is governed by Oklahoma law. [13] By executing the security agreement, the Tribe agreed that Oklahoma's Uniform Commercial Code, 12A O.S.1991, §§ 1-101 et seq., [14] would govern the bargain between the Tribe and Gungoll, even though it also reserved its sovereign rights. [15] ¶ 5 Where the language of a security agreement is unambiguous, the intent of the parties is a question of law; but where the language of a security agreement is ambiguous, the intent of the parties is a question of fact for the jury to decide. In re Yeary, 55 F.3d 504 (10th Cir.1995). Gungoll's security agreement unambiguously provides that Gungoll may exercise any and all rights and remedies provided by Oklahoma's UCC. The reservation of sovereign rights, however, could be viewed as creating ambiguity regarding the remedies available to Gungoll, a fact question which should be determined in the trial court. This case should be returned to the district court for resolution of the waiver issue and application of Manufacturing Technologies. [16]