By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
Only an Indian tribe can assert sovereign immunity from litigation in state courts, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a first-of-its-kind case.
In Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority v. Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson LLP (COA Docket No. 371255), the gaming authority, wholly controlled by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, sued a law firm it retained in the Chippewa Circuit Court alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty related to a separate court case involving the failure to open casinos in Detroit and Lansing.
The law firm, which was the tribe’s general counsel, moved in the circuit court for dismissal of the case, asserting it had sovereign immunity as an agent of the tribe and the contract between the tribe and the firm required the tribe to file its suit in tribal court.
In a 3-0 published opinion written by Judge Daniel Korobkin, the court held the real party in interest was not the tribe itself. The plaintiff, the casino authority, was not suing the tribe. It is suing the firm for their actions as general counsel.
“Defendants are attempting to assert immunity as tribal agents against claims in litigation brought by plaintiff, a tribal entity and wholly owned and subordinate instrumentality of the Tribe itself,” Korobkin wrote. “It would be peculiar if immunity – ‘a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance’ … could be invoked by a tribe’s agents where, as here, the agents are being sued by a tribal entity for allegedly violating their duty to the tribe.”
On that matter, the Court of Appeals, noting that no Michigan court has issued a binding precedent on the question – held the circuit court erred and reversed.
On the other question – whether the contract between the firm and the tribe required the tribe to sue in tribal court – Korobkin wrote that further development of the record is necessary. The key question is whether Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority and the tribe are so closely related to justify the firm invoking the requirement in contract that
litigation must be settled in tribal court.
The court remanded the case to the Chippewa Circuit Court to address the matter.
Judge Kathleen Feeney and Judge Christopher Yates also signed the opinion.
Gongwer News Service
Only an Indian tribe can assert sovereign immunity from litigation in state courts, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a first-of-its-kind case.
In Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority v. Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson LLP (COA Docket No. 371255), the gaming authority, wholly controlled by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, sued a law firm it retained in the Chippewa Circuit Court alleging legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty related to a separate court case involving the failure to open casinos in Detroit and Lansing.
The law firm, which was the tribe’s general counsel, moved in the circuit court for dismissal of the case, asserting it had sovereign immunity as an agent of the tribe and the contract between the tribe and the firm required the tribe to file its suit in tribal court.
In a 3-0 published opinion written by Judge Daniel Korobkin, the court held the real party in interest was not the tribe itself. The plaintiff, the casino authority, was not suing the tribe. It is suing the firm for their actions as general counsel.
“Defendants are attempting to assert immunity as tribal agents against claims in litigation brought by plaintiff, a tribal entity and wholly owned and subordinate instrumentality of the Tribe itself,” Korobkin wrote. “It would be peculiar if immunity – ‘a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and self-governance’ … could be invoked by a tribe’s agents where, as here, the agents are being sued by a tribal entity for allegedly violating their duty to the tribe.”
On that matter, the Court of Appeals, noting that no Michigan court has issued a binding precedent on the question – held the circuit court erred and reversed.
On the other question – whether the contract between the firm and the tribe required the tribe to sue in tribal court – Korobkin wrote that further development of the record is necessary. The key question is whether Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority and the tribe are so closely related to justify the firm invoking the requirement in contract that
litigation must be settled in tribal court.
The court remanded the case to the Chippewa Circuit Court to address the matter.
Judge Kathleen Feeney and Judge Christopher Yates also signed the opinion.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
