Opinion ID: 3029762
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Whether a tribal court properly exercised its jurisdiction is 2 The Appellants did not argue this theory of subject matter jurisdiction in their Opening Briefs. See Howard v. Everex Sys., Inc., 228 F.3d 1057, 1069 n.18 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that failure to provide any legal argument in support of a contention waived that argument). 304 FORD MOTOR CO. v. TODECHEENE a question of law reviewed de novo. AT&T Corp. v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe, 295 F.3d 899, 904 (9th Cir. 2002). The tribal court’s findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. FMC v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 905 F.2d 1311, 1313 (9th Cir. 1990). “[W]hether the district court was required to abstain from granting or denying an injunction when a party has failed to exhaust tribal court remedies” is reviewed de novo. El Paso Nat’l Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 136 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 526 U.S. 473 (1999). A district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Id. Where the district court’s ruling rests solely on law and the facts are established or undisputed, review is de novo. Sammartano v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2002).