Opinion ID: 1438862
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: C & L Enterprises's Choice of Law Provision

Text: The Oglala Sioux ask us to focus on a distinction between one fact in this case, and another in C & L Enterprises: C & L Enterprises's contract contained a choice of law provision. We consider that fact collateral to the C & L Enterprises decision. The Supreme Court noted the choice of law provision made it plain enough that the Potawatomi tribe had waived immunity to suit in Oklahoma, id. at 419, 121 S.Ct. 1589. Fairly read, however, it is clear the C & L Enterprises decision does not depend on this provision. In deciding C & L Enterprises, the Supreme Court favorably cited multiple lower court cases finding tribes subject to state court suits premised on arbitration agreements alone. See id. at 417-23, 121 S.Ct. 1589 (citing Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Val-U Constr. Co., 50 F.3d 560, 562 (8th Cir.1995); Sokaogon Gaming Enterprise Corp. v. Tushie-Montgomery Associates, Inc., 86 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir.1996); Eyak, 658 P.2d at 760; Val/Del, Inc. v. Superior Court, 145 Ariz. 558, 703 P.2d 502 (1985)). Going further, the Supreme Court said, due to C & L Enterprises's choice of law provision, it did not need to address the argument that tribal waivers should be subject to the same limitations as state waivers of immunity. Under state sovereign immunity jurisprudence, ambiguous waivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly and limited to a state's consent only to be sued in its own courts. See id. at 421 n. 4, 121 S.Ct. 1589. As we perceive no ambiguity in the contract before usindeed, no party has suggested ambiguitywe find no reason to decide this question either. We also decline to adopt a view that the work's locus, vis-a-vis the reservation's borders, distinguishes C & L Enterprises. Here, the work was performed on reservation land. In the C & L Enterprises project, it was done off-reservation. Kiowa establishes that whether a state court has jurisdiction over a tribe depends on whether the tribe has waived its immunity. Kiowa, 523 U.S. at 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700. In deciding the question of whether a tribe has waived immunity to a state court action brought to enforce an arbitration agreement, not a single case cited in C & L Enterprises concerned itself with the performance-location of the contracted service. We do not do so either. Once a waiver of immunity is established, state court jurisdiction depends on whether state law provides jurisdiction over a given subject matter. Here, the state court has jurisdiction because the arbitration occurred in South Dakota, see S.D.C.L. § 21-25A-4; the locus of the work is irrelevant. In light of the Tribe's agreement to, and full participation in, the arbitration proceedings held in South Dakota, we find the South Dakota state court has jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award and enter judgment thereon.