Exc Inc. v. Jamien Jensen , 588 F. App'x 720 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 23 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    EXC INCORPORATED, a Nevada                       No. 12-16958
    corporation, DBA D.I.A. Express
    Incorporated, DBA Express Charters;              D.C. No. 3:10-cv-08197-JAT
    CONLON GARAGE INCORPORATED,
    a Colorado corporation; GO AHEAD
    VACATIONS; NATIONAL                              MEMORANDUM*
    INTERSTATE INSURANCE
    COMPANY; RUSSELL J. CONLON,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,
    v.
    JAMIEN RAE JENSEN, individually, and
    as parent and next friend of D.J.J., and as
    Personal Representative of the Wrongful
    Death Estate of Corey Johnson; CHAVIS
    JOHNSON, individually, and as Personal
    Representative of the Wrongful Death
    Estate of Burch Corey Johnson;
    MARGARET JOHNSON; FRANK
    JOHNSON, individually, and as parents
    and next friends of H.J. and D.J.;
    FRANCESCA JOHNSON, individually;
    JUSTIN JOHNSON, individually;
    RAYMOND JENSEN, Sr., individually;
    LOUISE R. JENSEN, individually;
    NICOLE JENSEN, individually; RYAN
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    JENSEN, individually; JUSTIN JENSEN,
    individually; KATRINA JENSEN,
    individually; RAYMOND JENSEN, Jr.,
    individually; MURPHY JENSEN,
    individually,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    And
    KAYENTA DISTRICT COURT;
    NAVAJO NATION SUPREME COURT;
    JENNIFER BENALLY, Judge of the
    Kayenta District Court,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    James A. Teilborg, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted November 21, 2014
    San Francisco, California
    Before: RAWLINSON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and MARSHALL,
    Senior District Judge.**
    Appellants, members of the Jensen/Johnson family, appeal the district
    court’s holding that the Navajo Nation tribal courts may not exercise adjudicatory
    jurisdiction over a highway accident that occurred on a stretch of U.S. Highway
    **
    The Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall, Senior District Judge for the
    U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    1
    160—an Arizona state highway—within the exterior boundaries of the Navajo
    Reservation. We review determinations of tribal court jurisdiction de novo, and we
    review factual findings for clear error. Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc.
    v. LaRance, 
    642 F.3d 802
    , 808 (9th Cir. 2011).
    Appellants conceded at oral argument that the Navajo Nation has not
    retained the right to exclude nonmembers on U.S. Highway 160. Consequently,
    the highway is the equivalent of non-Indian fee land for jurisdictional purposes,
    and this case is governed by Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 
    520 U.S. 438
     (1997). See
    Strate, 
    520 U.S. at 455-56
    .
    Under Strate, tribal jurisdiction is appropriate only if one of the two
    exceptions articulated in Montana v. United States, 
    450 U.S. 544
     (1981), applies.
    Strate, 
    520 U.S. at 456
    . The first Montana exception covers “the activities of
    nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members,
    through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangements.” 
    450 U.S. at 565
    . This exception does not apply to this case, because the unsigned permit
    agreement—even if binding on Appellees—did not provide sufficient notice that
    EXC would be subject to tribal court jurisdiction on U.S. Highway 160 to be a
    basis for imputing consent. See Water Wheel, 
    642 F.3d at 818
     (“For purposes of
    determining whether a consensual relationship exists under Montana’s first
    2
    exception, consent may be established ‘expressly or by [the nonmember’s]
    actions.’” (citing Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle Co., 
    554 U.S. 316
    , 337 (2008)) (alteration in original)). The second Montana exception
    allows tribes to exercise jurisdiction over nonmember conduct “when that conduct
    threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security,
    or the health or welfare of the tribe.” 
    450 U.S. at 566
    . A tort suit arising out of a
    state highway accident does not implicate the second Montana exception. Strate,
    
    520 U.S. at 459
    .
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-16958

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 720

Judges: Rawlinson, Friedland, Marshall

Filed Date: 12/23/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024