Court Opinion

ID: 9514492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:49:55.462946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:18.325678
License: Public Domain

*120AMUNDSON, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 37.] In this case, counsel for the Tribe participated in the selection of the arbitrator, appeared at the arbitration, submitted evidence and argument and later advised the arbitrator that no written brief would be submitted. Not until this case was in federal district court after the Tribe received an adverse decision from the arbitrator, was the trump card sovereign immunity brought forward.' The majority holding in this case approves the withholding of this sovereign immunity bullet until you present your case and lose. Based on the authority cited in the majority writing, there was ample precedent on point for the Tribe and its attorney (who has represented the Tribe at every stage of this proceeding) to, in good faith, litigate this sovereign immunity issue right out of the chute. But now this Court seems to say if you lose in one forum where there was no personal jurisdiction — don’t worry, you can always get a second bite of the apple here. I cannot agree with such a holding. I must conclude by stating that I am in total agreement with the dissent filed by Justice Sabers.