Opinion ID: 4445330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Lummi’s Case

Text: We review the scope of our mandate and a trial court’s compliance with it de novo. SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. LUMMI TRIBE v. UNITED STATES 5 United States, 817 F.3d 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 576 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The mandate rule instructs that we do not reconsider issues that were implicitly or explicitly decided on a prior appeal. TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2013). An issue was implicitly decided if it was “necessary to our disposition of the appeal.” Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 115 F.3d 947, 952 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Unless remanded by this court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.” Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 757 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A mandate is only “controlling as to matters within its compass,” and a trial court on remand “is free as to other issues.” Sprague v. Ticonic Nat. Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168 (1939) (citing In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 256 (1895)). On appeal, Lummi argues that the Claims Court erred by dismissing its independent claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust. 1 Resolution of this issue turns on whether these claims were within the scope of our prior mandate. We conclude that they were not. The prior interlocutory appeal in this case was framed by the Claims Court’s September 30 Order, which decided only two issues: whether NAHASDA was money mandating and whether HUD’s failure to provide Lummi with a hearing constituted a per se illegal exaction. See J.A. 41– 42 (September 30 Order at 4–5); see also J.A. 60–61 (Order 1 The government concedes that Lummi’s complaint included these breach claims. Appellee’s Br. 3 (citing J.A. 32–35). 6 LUMMI TRIBE v. UNITED STATES at 2–3, Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington v. United States, No. 2016-124 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2016), ECF No. 9) (granting the government’s petition for permission to appeal the September 30 Order “that reaffirmed [the Claims Court’s] prior ruling that NAHASDA is moneymandating . . . [and] addressed and rejected [Lummi’s] argument that HUD’s failure to afford a hearing alone entitled them to the return of monies on their illegal exaction claim”). Accordingly, the scope of our review in the prior appeal was limited to Lummi’s claim under NAHASDA and its illegal exaction claim. Our prior opinion, which “may be consulted to ascertain what was intended by [the court’s] mandate,” Sanford, 160 U.S. at 256, likewise addressed only those two claims, see Lummi Tribe, 870 F.3d at 1317– 19. Nor did we resolve Lummi’s breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust claims by “necessary implication,” because resolving those claims was not necessary to our conclusions that NAHASDA is not a moneymandating statute or that funds not in Lummi’s possession or control could not be illegally exacted. See Laitram, 115 F.3d at 951–52. Lummi’s breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust claims were therefore not within the scope of our prior mandate. The government argues that we should reject Lummi’s appeal, raising three primary arguments in support. We address each in turn. First, the government argues that Lummi’s appeal is barred by the mandate rule because our prior instruction to “dismiss this action” resolved the “dispositive jurisdictional issue for the complaint in its entirety.” Appellee’s Br. 8–9. We disagree. As explained above, our prior mandate resolved only the question of the Claims Court’s jurisdiction over Lummi’s NAHASDA and illegal exaction claims. We had no occasion to consider the entirety of Lummi’s complaint. The parties did not address Lummi’s remaining claims in their merits briefing. In certifying its September 30 Order for interlocutory appeal, the Claims LUMMI TRIBE v. UNITED STATES 7 Court stated that Lummi asserted only two claims: “(1) a violation of NAHASDA’s money mandate; and (2) an illegal exaction claim based on HUD’s failure to provide a hearing.” J.A. 53. Thus, whereas this court’s order could be read to mean that all claims raised before the Claims Court were to be dismissed, our mandate “to dismiss this action” necessarily referred to only those claims that were presented to us—the NAHASDA and illegal exaction claims. See Laitram, 115 F.3d at 952 (“It is incorrect to conclude that we decided issues not only undecided on the merits by the trial court . . . , and thus on appeal unripe, but also neither presented to us nor discussed in our opinion, nor necessary to our disposition of the appeal.”). Second, the government argues that Lummi waived its claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust by not raising those arguments in the prior appeal. Appellee’s Br. 9–10. The government contends Lummi was required to do so because it asserts that those claims were within the scope of the Claims Court’s September 30 Order. Id. This argument is meritless. As we explained, the scope of the Claims Court’s September 30 Order was limited to deciding whether the Claims Court possessed jurisdiction over Lummi’s claim under NAHASDA and its illegal exaction claim, and those were the only issues on which we permitted the government’s interlocutory appeal. See J.A. 41–42, 60–61. Lummi had no prior opportunity to present its arguments on its remaining claims, and we will not close the courthouse doors on unadjudicated issues. Lastly, the government argues that this court already resolved Lummi’s breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust claims by denying Lummi’s petition for rehearing in the prior appeal, which mentioned those claims. Appellee’s Br. 10–11. It is well settled, however, that a decision to deny rehearing does not resolve the merits of those arguments made in the petition for rehearing that are not material to the court’s initial resolution of 8 LUMMI TRIBE v. UNITED STATES the appeal. See Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 137 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Because resolving Lummi’s breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust claims was not necessary to our resolution of the government’s prior interlocutory appeal, our denial of Lummi’s rehearing request “does not carry a presumption of rejection on the merits” of those claims. Id. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that because neither the Claims Court nor this court previously adjudicated Lummi’s breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust claims, the Claims Court erred by dismissing Lummi’s entire case.