Opinion ID: 163863
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Interests

Text: 36 Plaintiffs argue that the district court should not have considered the risk of subjecting Defendants to inconsistent legal obligations because such obligations are entirely speculative. Specifically, they point out that the BIA need not comply with a Tribal regulation that might conflict with a ruling in favor of the Estelusti. More important, however, is that the Tribe would not be bound by the judgment in this case and could initiate litigation against Defendants if the BIA withheld funds. Thus, Defendants might well be prejudiced by multiple litigation or even inconsistent judgments if this litigation were to proceed without the Tribe. See Patterson, 390 U.S. at 110, 88 S.Ct. 733 (defendant's interest in avoiding multiple litigation is proper consideration under Rule 19(b)). 37 This possibility is not speculative. Plaintiffs themselves recognize the substantial likelihood of subsequent litigation when they state (while addressing another issue): [T]he Tribe reacts swiftly when the BIA cuts off federal funding.... The notion that [the] Tribe will not react to losing access to the $56 million Judgment Fund is absurd. Aplt. Br. at 26. 38 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that under Rule 19(b), both the Tribe and Defendants have interests that would likely be prejudiced by litigation in the Tribe's absence. 39