Opinion ID: 887551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Consensual Relationship Exception

Text: ¶ 28 The first Montana exception recognizes inherent tribal authority to exercise civil adjudicative jurisdiction with respect to activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. Strate, 520 U.S. at 456-57, 117 S.Ct. at 1415 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 29 This exception establishes a three-part test to determine whether a nonmember's relationship serves as the basis for tribal jurisdiction. The relationship: (1) must be consensual; (2) must involve a tribe or a tribal member; and (3) must be entered into through commercial dealings, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. We conclude that the relationship at issue here does not qualify because it did not involve the tribe or its members and it can not be considered consensual. Either of these facts, independently, precludes a finding of tribal jurisdiction under the first Montana exception, as the three requirements noted above are conjunctive. ¶ 30 The conduct at issue here is TTC's alleged negligence in serving alcoholic beverages to Zempel and failing to prevent Moore from attempting to drive him home. The relationship from which this conduct arises is that between TTC and Zempel. [8] TTC does not claim to be a tribal member. Indeed, the membership provisions of CSKT's Constitution, found in Article II, do not allow for corporations to obtain membership status. However, TTC repeatedly asserts that it is an Indian-owned business and suggests that Liberty's status as a tribal member somehow imbues the corporation with a tribal characteristic sufficient to establishes tribal jurisdiction. As noted above, it is well settled that a corporation maintains a legal identity which is separate and distinct from that of its shareholders. Moats Trucking Co., 231 Mont. at 477, 753 P.2d at 885. Thus, we can not hold that TTC assumes the mantle of Liberty's tribal membership for jurisdictional purposes. Accordingly, we take TTC for what it is; a corporate entity which exists by virtue of Montana law, and which derives income by selling alcohol to the public under privilege of a Montana liquor license. ¶ 31 Because the relationship at issue here is between TTC and Zempel, and because neither TTC nor Zempel are tribal members, no relationship with the tribe or its members exists to provide a basis for tribal jurisdiction under this exception. Moreover, even if TTC were a tribal member, its interaction with Zempel could not constitute a consensual relationship under this exception, as Montana statutory law prohibits Montana corporations from selling alcohol to individuals younger than twenty-one years of age. Section 16-3-301(3), MCA. Accordingly, we hold that CSKT's inherent sovereignty does not encompass adjudicative jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to Montana's first exception.