Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. State, C70-9213. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20170313g58 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE'S CLAIM II Subproceeding No. 14-02. RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , District Judge . Pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g) and Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a), the parties Nisqually Indian Tribe ("Nisqually") and Squaxin Island Tribe ("Squaxin"), through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the following: STIPULATION WHEREAS, Nisqually filed this subproceeding against Squaxin alleging two claims: (1) that S
More

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE'S CLAIM II

Subproceeding No. 14-02.

Pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g) and Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a), the parties Nisqually Indian Tribe ("Nisqually") and Squaxin Island Tribe ("Squaxin"), through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the following:

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, Nisqually filed this subproceeding against Squaxin alleging two claims: (1) that Squaxin Island did not have usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations in the waters in and around Anderson Island, also referred to as the Subproceeding Area, as determined by Judge Boldt in Final Decision #I (Claim I); and (2) that the Squaxin Island Tribe is barred by judicial estoppel, collateral estoppel, and finality of judgments from fishing in the Subproceeding Area waters as a result of Judge Craig's Order Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Re: Determination of Additional Usual and Accustomed Fishing Places of Nisqually, Puyallup, and Squaxin Island Tribes, United States v. Washington, 626 F.Supp. 1405, 1441-1442 (W.D. Wash. 1985) as set forth in paragraphs 7.1 through 7.13, inclusive, of Nisqually's Request for Determination (Dkt. No. 6) (Claim II);

WHEREAS, on June 15, 2016, Judge Martinez entered an order on Claim I (Dkt. #50) denying Nisqually's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #37) and granting Squaxin Island's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #36);

WHEREAS, Judge Martinez left the case open for Nisqually to pursue Claim II as presented in its Request for Determination;

WHEREAS, Nisqually, Squaxin and the Puyallup Tribe engaged in discovery with respect to Claim II;

WHEREAS, Nisqually has now decided to dismiss with prejudice its Claim II under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), and to seek a final judgment as to the Court's Orders in Dkt. Nos. 50, 56 (Order Denying in Part Nisqually's Motion for Reconsideration) and 59 (Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration); and

WHEREAS, Squaxin supports Nisqually's decision to dismiss with prejudice Claim II.

THEREFORE, THE NISQUALLY TRIBE AND SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE STIPULATE that Claim II of the above-captioned subproceeding is dismissed with prejudice, that Claim II is terminated, that each Party shall bear its own costs; and that the Court enter final judgment as to its Orders (Dkt. # 50, 56, 59).

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. Claim II, as set forth in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.13, inclusive, of Nisqually's Request for Determination, is hereby dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk shall enter final judgment with respect to the Court's Order on Claim I (Dkt.#50).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer