BRUCE D. BLACK, District Judge.
This action comes before the Court on the Personal Representatives' motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction [Doc. 15], and the Honorable Judge Nan G. Nash's motion to dismiss [Doc. 18]. Having read the briefs and the relevant caselaw, the Court will deny the Personal Representatives' motion. The Court will then grant in part and deny in part Judge Nash's motion.
The Court derives the facts from the Complaint, see generally Doc. 1, and presumes them to be true for the sake of the present motions. See Alvarado v. KOBTV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007).
According to the Complaint, Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. ("Tamaya") operates the Santa Ana Star Casino, located on Santa Ana Pueblo land, and thus within Santa Ana Indian Country. The Star Casino is operated pursuant to the terms of a class III compact between the Pueblo of Santa Ana ("Santa Ana") and the State of New Mexico (the "Compact"). Section 8(A) of the Compact provides that claims for compensatory damages for bodily injury or property damage "may be brought in state district court" even if the claims arose on tribal land.
Desirée Mendoza, Michael Mendoza, and Dominic Montoya (collectively the "Personal Representatives") attended a wedding reception at the Star Casino on the evening of July 9, 2006. They were served alcoholic beverages at the Casino by Tamaya employees. Despite the apparent intoxication of Desirée and Michael, Tamaya employees allegedly continued to serve them alcohol. Following the reception, Michael and Desirée left the Casino in a vehicle with Dominic, heading south on Interstate 25. Just north of the Tramway exit, the vehicle rolled over, claiming the lives of Michael and Desirée, and injuring Dominic.
Gina Mendoza and F. Michael Hart, in their capacity as representatives for Michael and Desirée respectively, filed suit in state district court under the New Mexico
Tamaya moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. With respect to the state court's jurisdiction, Tamaya argued that New Mexico law provides that alcohol sales on Santa Ana Pueblo land must be governed by Pueblo law. Section 191 of the Pueblo Liquor Ordinance, 71 Fed.Reg. 17,903, 17,910 (Apr. 7, 2006) ("Liquor Ordinance"), in turn, provides that any action premised on a violation of the Liquor Ordinance "shall be brought in the Tribal Court of the Pueblo, which court shall have exclusive jurisdiction thereof." Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, Tamaya asserted that the Personal Representatives could only bring their claim in tribal court: the state district court lacked jurisdiction. Following a hearing on the motion, the state district court dismissed the case.
On appeal, the New Mexico Court of Appeals disagreed, holding instead that the district court had jurisdiction over the action based on the plain terms of Section 8(A) of the Compact. Mendoza v. Tamaya Enters., 148 N.M. 534, 238 P.3d 903, 910-11 (N.M.App.2010). The Casino then petitioned for and was granted a writ of certiorari to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, as set forth in the published opinion of Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc., 150 N.M. 258, 258 P.3d 1050 (2011) (hereinafter "Mendoza"). First, the New Mexico Supreme Court addressed whether the state district court had jurisdiction over the case. Id. at 1054-55. The court noted that Section 8(A) of the Compact provides state court jurisdiction over personal injury claims brought by persons who suffer personal injury proximately caused by the tribal entity authorized to conduct gaming pursuant to the Compact. Id. The court then cited its prior decision in Doe v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 141 N.M. 269, 154 P.3d 644 (2007), for the proposition that the "jurisdictional shifting" provisions in the Compact, namely Section 8(A), were enforceable. Thus, even though the Liquor Ordinance provided exclusive jurisdiction in tribal court, "by virtue of Section 8 of the Compact, the Pueblo unambiguously agreed to proceed in state court for claims involving injuries proximately caused by the conduct of the Casino." Mendoza, 258 P.3d at 1055.
Secure in its jurisdiction, the New Mexico Supreme Court then proceeded to the merits of the Personal Representatives' wrongful death claims. The court ultimately concluded that the state court complaint stated sufficient facts to establish a third-party common law claim with respect to the passenger of the vehicle as well as a patron claim with respect to the driver. Id. at 1057-60. The court thus remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Id. at 1060.
After the case had been remanded, Tamaya and Santa Ana filed a complaint in
The Personal Representatives move to dismiss the case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for want of federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Simultaneously, Judge Nash moves to dismiss the case under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7).
"[T]o withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain enough allegations of fact `to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir.2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Accordingly, when reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court "must determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting all the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed." Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir.2007). In making its determination, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to Tamaya and Santa Ana, and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that "a losing party in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States District Court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994). Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that Rooker-Feldman is a narrow doctrine which only applies in a limited set of circumstances: "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005).
In their motion to dismiss, the Personal Representatives claim that Tamaya and Santa Ana seek nothing more than further review of the judgments entered by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Santa Clara Pueblo and/or Mendoza. Such review, the Personal Representatives claim, is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Court must disagree.
The first question is whether Rooker-Feldman is implicated by the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Santa Clara Pueblo. Decided in 2007, Santa Clara Pueblo held that the jurisdictional shifting provisions in the Compact, specifically Section 8(A), were not expressly prohibited by the IGRA. Santa Clara Pueblo, supra, 154 P.3d at 648. To the contrary, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the IGRA implicitly authorizes a process whereby the tribes and state can "allocate most or all of the jurisdictional responsibility to the tribe, to the State or to any variation in between." Id. at 654 (quoting S.Rep. No. 100-446, at 14 (1988), 1988 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3071, 3084). The court thus concluded that Congress envisioned such jurisdictional agreements as that found in Section 8(A) of the Compact, thereby rendering them enforceable. Id. at 656.
Despite the holding in Santa Clara Pueblo, Tamaya and Santa Ana now seek relief in this Court in the form of an order declaring the jurisdictional shifting provisions in the Compact unenforceable under the IGRA. Relying on Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959) and its progeny, Tamaya and Santa Ana argue that state courts have no jurisdiction to hear a suit by a non-Indian plaintiff against a tribal enterprise that arose from an alleged wrong committed within Indian country. Doc. 24, at 1. They further claim that the IGRA does not permit state courts to exercise jurisdiction over such suits. Id. at 3. Accordingly, they assert that Section 8(A) of the compact is unenforceable, despite the fact that Santa Ana expressly agreed to the language found in the Compact. Clearly then, Tamaya and Santa Ana seek review of precisely the issue decided by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Santa Clara Pueblo. Indeed, they appear to admit as much in their briefing to this Court. Id. (noting that "the issue plaintiffs present to the Court in this case ... may be identical to the issues litigated in [Santa Clara Pueblo ]"). For Rooker-Feldman, the key question, however, is not whether Tamaya and Santa Ana are raising the same issue decided in Santa Clara Pueblo; rather, the dispositive question is whether they were parties to Santa Clara Pueblo.
It is apparent that neither Tamaya nor Santa Ana were a party to Santa Clara Pueblo. Santa Clara Pueblo involved two separate personal injury lawsuits filed by non-tribal members against the Santa Clara and the San Felipe Pueblos. 154 P.3d at 646. The incidents underlying each lawsuit occurred at Santa Clara's Big Rock Casino and San Felipe's Casino Hollywood. Id. Both cases were filed in state district court. Both cases were then consolidated on appeal and argued before the New Mexico Supreme Court. But, neither Tamaya nor Santa Ana was a full party to the proceedings, and thus neither was in a position to seek review of Santa Clara Pueblo in the U.S. Supreme Court. Accordingly, Rooker-Feldman is not implicated by the decision in Santa Clara Pueblo. See Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 464, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2006) ("Rooker-Feldman [is] inapplicable where the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was not a party to the underlying state-court proceeding.") (citing Johnson, 512 U.S. at 1006, 114 S.Ct. 2647); Johnson v. Rodrigues (Orozco), 226 F.3d 1103, 1109 (10th Cir.2000) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine "should not be applied against non-parties" to a state-court judgment).
Even so, the Personal Representatives argue that Santa Ana was a party in Santa Clara Pueblo, either in its role as
Alternatively, the Personal Representatives argue that Rooker-Feldman is implicated by the decision in Mendoza. In response, Tamaya and Santa Ana argue that the instant case is not barred by Mendoza because (1) they are not directly attacking the decision in Mendoza, let alone seeking appellate review of that decision in this Court; (2) the judgment in Mendoza is not final for the purposes of Rooker-Feldman due to the remand order to state district court; and (3) Santa Ana was not a party to the decision in Mendoza and thus could not have sought review of that decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's analysis focuses on the first issue, namely whether Tamaya and Santa Ana are directly attacking and effectively seeking appellate review of Mendoza in this Court — review that would be barred under Rooker-Feldman.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies in scenarios where the federal plaintiff seeks appellate review of a state-court judgment. The doctrine bars lower federal courts from hearing claims that were either (1) actually decided by a state court, Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, or (2) "inextricably intertwined" with a prior state court judgment, Feldman,
To begin, Tamaya and Santa Ana have not repaired to this Court to seek appellate review of an issue actually decided by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Mendoza. In Mendoza, Tamaya took the position that the Pueblo's Liquor Ordinance specified exclusive jurisdiction in tribal court, not state court. Mendoza v. Tamaya Enters., supra, 258 P.3d at 1054. Put another way, Tamaya argued that the Liquor Ordinance contradicted Section 8 of the Compact which provided jurisdiction over such cases in state court. The New Mexico Supreme Court dismissed this argument. First, the court cited Santa Clara Pueblo for the proposition that the jurisdictional shifting provisions of the Compact were enforceable. Id. The court then explained that a prior version of the Liquor Ordinance was in place before Santa Ana entered into the Compact. Id. The court thus concluded that "by virtue of Section 8 of the Compact, the Pueblo unambiguously agreed to proceed in state court for claims involving injuries proximately caused by the conduct of the Casino." Id. at 1055.
Before this Court, Tamaya and Santa Ana now argue that the IGRA does not permit the shifting of jurisdiction over claims against tribal entities arising on tribal lands. Due to the lack of such explicit authorization from Congress, they argue that Williams v. Lee bars the consent to suit in state court found in Section 8(A) of the Compact. Thus, by asking this Court to review the Compact under the IGRA, Tamaya and Santa Ana have presented this Court with an "independent claim" for relief. Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517. While a decision on this argument could lead to a holding that the state court lacks jurisdiction, such a decision would not overturn Mendoza's conclusion that the Liquor Ordinance does not vest exclusive jurisdiction in tribal court. See Bolden v. Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1144 (10th Cir.2006) (noting that "Rooker-Feldman does not bar a federal-court suit raising a claim previously decided by a state court unless the federal suit actually seeks to overturn, as opposed to simply contradict, the state-court judgment").
Nonetheless, the Personal Representatives argue that the issue raised before this Court regarding the IGRA is "inextricably intertwined" with the decision in Mendoza. They assert that Mendoza was a clear reaffirmation of Santa Clara Pueblo — a decision holding that the IGRA permits the jurisdictional shifting provisions in the Compact. Thus, given that Tamaya and Santa Ana are simply arguing that the IGRA does not permit the shifting of jurisdiction, the Personal Representatives reason that they are directly attacking and simply seeking appellate review of Mendoza, albeit in this Court as opposed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Tenth Circuit's decision in Bolden forecloses this argument. Bolden v. Topeka, supra, 441 F.3d 1129. There, the Tenth Circuit explored the U.S. Supreme Court's application of the term "inextricably intertwined." Id. The Tenth Circuit noted that this phrase "has no independent content." Id. at 1141. The Tenth Circuit further clarified the distinction between seeking appellate review of a state court judgment and raising an independent claim that threatens to contradict a state court judgment:
Id. at 1143. Here, neither Tamaya nor Santa Ana asks this Court to review the "bona fides" of the decision in Mendoza. While Tamaya and Santa Ana attack the decision in Santa Clara Pueblo — a decision cited favorably in Mendoza — that does not equate into an attack on the proceedings in Mendoza. Equally important, the Complaint "do[es] not rest on any allegations concerning the state-court proceedings or judgment." Id. at 1145. This Court will not be forced into an appellate review of the decision in Mendoza. See, e.g., Kelly v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 2007 WL 2381536, at *5 (D.Colo. Aug. 17, 2007).
What is more, neither Tamaya nor the Pueblo seeks to undo or reverse the relief granted in Mendoza. As the Tenth Circuit explained in Mo's Express, "when the relief sought by the plaintiffs would not reverse or `undo' the state-court judgment, Rooker-Feldman does not apply." Mo's Express, 441 F.3d at 1237. The Tenth Circuit thus deemed Rooker-Feldman inappropriate in that case because (1) the plaintiff asserted "general constitutional challenges" for the purpose of obtaining prospective injunctive and declaratory relief; and (2) if successful, the plaintiff's claims would not have disrupted a state-court judgment. Id. at 1237-38. Similarly, in the instant case, Tamaya and Santa Ana have brought a general challenge to the state court's jurisdiction. In other words, their claim would be identical even if there had been no state-court proceeding. What is more, they only seek prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. Such relief, like the relief in Mo's Express,
That being said, Tamaya and Santa Ana's claims may still be precluded under res judicata doctrine. Id. at 1145; Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517 (noting that a "federal court may be bound to recognize the claim- and issue-preclusive effects of a state-court judgment"). Two related doctrines operate to prevent repetitive litigation: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Park Lake Resources L.L.C. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 378 F.3d 1132, 1135 (10th Cir.2004). At this point, however, the parties have not yet had the opportunity to address whether res judicata doctrine bars the claims in the instant case, focusing instead on the threshold issue of whether the Court has jurisdiction.
Judge Nash moves to dismiss the case on four grounds. First, she claims immunity under the 11th Amendment and the doctrine of judicial immunity. She further claims that the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), bar this Court from enjoining the performance of her judicial duties. Finally, Judge Nash emphasizes that the Plaintiffs have failed to join an indispensable party — the State of New Mexico (the "State").
The Eleventh Amendment provides: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or subjects of any Foreign State." Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), however, recognizes a narrow exception to the Eleventh Amendment where "a state officer may be enjoined from taking any steps towards the enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of complainant." Buchwald v. Univ. of N.M. Sch. of Med., 159 F.3d 487, 495 (10th Cir.1998) (internal citation omitted). In determining whether a suit falls within the Ex Parte Young exception, the Court "need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective." Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Pub. Ser. Comm'n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002) (internal quotations omitted).
Judge Nash, however, argues that Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), forecloses the instant claim — a claim under Ex Parte Young to enforce the IGRA. In that case, the Seminole Tribe of Florida brought an Ex Parte Young claim in federal court against the Governor of Florida seeking to enforce the state's duty to negotiate in good faith with the tribe as set forth in section 2710(d)(3) of the IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the claim against the Governor, holding that "where Congress has prescribed a detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement against a state of a statutorily created right, a court should hesitate before casting aside those limitations and permitting an action against a state officer based upon Ex parte Young." Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 74-76, 116 S.Ct. 1114.
The question, then, is whether Tamaya and Santa Ana's claim arises under a statutory right created under the IGRA. See Nelson v. Geringer, 295 F.3d 1082, 1097 (10th Cir.2002) (emphasizing that the limitation in Seminole Tribe "applies only to a statutorily created right") (internal citations omitted). It does not. Tamaya and Santa Ana first argue that pursuant to federal Indian common law, the state lacks jurisdiction over the personal injury claims against Tamaya. What is more, they argue that the IGRA does not permit the shifting of jurisdiction to state court. In this light, it cannot be said that Tamaya and Santa Ana are seeking to enforce a statutorily created right under the IGRA. Rather, they are seeking to enforce federal Indian common law. Accordingly, Seminole Tribe does not foreclose their claim under Ex Parte Young. See Nelson, 295 F.3d at 1097.
With respect to their claim for injunctive relief, Tamaya and Santa Ana have failed to demonstrate that "a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable," 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, Judge Nash did not violate a declaratory decree, nor do Tamaya or Santa Ana contend that she did. Second, Tamaya and Santa Ana do not allege, nor does it appear, that declaratory relief was unavailable in the state proceeding. Accordingly, their claim for injunctive relief against Judge Nash is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Knox, 632 F.3d at 1292.
Their claim for a declaratory order, however, is not barred by judicial immunity. The Tenth Circuit has continued to recognize that judicial immunity is not a bar to declaratory relief. Lawrence, 271 Fed.Appx. at 766; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (placing no limitations on declaratory relief). In the instant case, Tamaya and Santa Ana seek a declaration that the IGRA does not authorize the shifting of jurisdiction as found in Section 8(A) of the Compact. Put another way, they seek a declaration regarding the validity of the tribal grant of state court jurisdiction over future proceedings. Such an order, if granted, constitutes a form of prospective declaratory relief. Lawrence, 271 Fed. Appx. at 766 ("A declaratory judgment is meant to define the legal rights and obligations of the parties in anticipation of some future conduct, not simply to proclaim liability for a past act."). Accordingly, it is not barred by Section 1983 as amended by the FCIA.
The Younger doctrine, as developed, requires abstention when federal proceedings would (1) interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding (2) that implicates important state interests and (3) that affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims. See, e.g., Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982); Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Okla. v. Oklahoma, 874 F.2d 709, 711 (10th Cir. 1989). All three of these criteria must be met for Younger abstention to be warranted. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 874 F.2d at 711. In applying the Younger test, the Court adheres to the principle that abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is considered "an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate the controversy properly
First, there is clearly an ongoing state court judicial proceeding. Litigation in the state court has already reached the New Mexico Supreme Court, see Mendoza, 258 P.3d 1050, and is now on remand to the state district court for further proceedings. The Court thus turns to the second Younger factor regarding whether the state proceedings implicate "important state interests, matters which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies." Taylor, 126 F.3d at 1297.
Judge Nash argues that the State has an important interest in the interpretation and application of the Personal Representatives' common-law tort claims. True, state courts are better qualified to interpret issues regarding the state's own common law. See R.R. Comm'n of Tx. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 499-500, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941) (noting that the "last word" on the interpretation of state law issues from that state's highest court). And, the proceedings in state court have raised issues regarding personal liability under New Mexico common law and statutes — issues which the state's highest court has resolved. See Mendoza, 258 P.3d at 1055-60.
This argument, however, overlooks the threshold question raised by Tamaya and Santa Ana, namely whether the state court has jurisdiction in the first place to hear the Personal Representatives' tort claims. Resolving this jurisdictional question implicates tribal sovereign immunity — an issue that is paramount and federal. See Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 874 F.2d 709, 713 (10th Cir.1989) ("federal law, federal policy, and federal authority are paramount in the conduct of Indian affairs in Indian Country"); Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341 F.3d 1202, 1204-05 (10th Cir. 2003) (affirming the district court's conclusion that the threshold question of whether the state had jurisdiction to tax a tribe "was a matter of federal, not state, law"). Accordingly, due to the primacy of this federal jurisdictional issue, the state's interest in the litigation is not significant enough to justify Younger abstention. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, 874 F.2d at 714 (finding that when state court is asked to decide "issues of federal law where federal interests predominate," such as whether state had jurisdiction to regulate tribes, "the State's interest in the litigation is ... not important enough to warrant Younger abstention"); Fort Belknap Indian Cmty. of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation v. Mazurek, 43 F.3d 428, 431-32 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding the "threshold question" — whether the state had jurisdiction to prosecute — to be "paramount and federal," making Younger abstention inappropriate); Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache, 54 F.3d 535 (9th Cir.1994) (finding Younger abstention inappropriate where threshold issue was whether state had jurisdiction to prosecute Indians pursuant to state gaming laws) (quotations and citations omitted).
Alternatively, Judge Nash argues that the State has a significant interest in the integrity of the Compact between the State of New Mexico and Santa Ana. To the extent the integrity of the Compact is at issue in this litigation — a point disputed by Tamaya and Santa Ana
Judge Nash argues that the Anti-Injunction Act requires dismissal. The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, does not preclude a federal court from enjoining a state court proceeding where such action: (1) has been "expressly authorized by Act of Congress"; (2) is necessary in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction; or (3) is necessary to effectuate a federal court's judgments.
The crux of Tamaya and Santa Ana's claim is that the state district court lacks jurisdiction over this type of personal injury suit. They thus argue that an injunction fits the second exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, namely an injunction is "necessary in aid of [the federal court's] jurisdiction." See, e.g., Bowen v. Doyle, 880 F.Supp. 99, 130 (W.D.N.Y.1995) (the necessary-in-aid-of-jurisdiction "exception has been expressly held to permit Indian tribes to bring federal court suits to enjoin state court proceedings where the threshold issue is whether the state court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute"). The problem with this argument, however, is that Tamaya and Santa Ana argue that tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the type of claims brought by the Personal Representatives. They do not argue that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over these claims. It is thus unclear how an injunction, if issued by this Court, would be "necessary in aid of [this Court's] jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 2283; see also Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 54 F.3d at 540 (holding that an injunction of state proceedings was "necessary to preserve exclusive federal jurisdiction") (emphasis added).
That said, other federal courts have held that the second exception to the Anti-Injunction Act applies to preserve the integrity
This Court need not resolve whether an injunction to preserve tribal sovereignty fits the necessary-in-aid-of-jurisdiction exception. Instead, the Court concludes that the injunctive relief sought by Tamaya and Santa Ana fits the first exception because it is "expressly authorized by Act of Congress." 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The Supreme Court has held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a statute that "expressly authorize[s]" federal court injunctions against state court proceedings, and such suits are not subject to the bar of the Anti-Injunction Act. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 243, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972). Here, the Complaint states a claim under section 1983, alleging that Judge Nash, by presiding over the state court case without jurisdiction, has deprived Tamaya of its interests secured under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In deciding whether a party is indispensable under Rule 19(b), the Court applies a three-part analysis. See Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Norton, 248 F.3d 993, 997 (10th Cir.2001). First the court must determine whether an absent party is a required or necessary party. Id. If so, the court must then determine whether joinder of the required party is feasible. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)-(b).
The Court's analysis under rule 19(b) begins with the issue of whether the State of New Mexico is a required or necessary party. A party is necessary if:
Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). Here, the Court can afford complete relief in the absence of the State. The Complaint seeks a declaration that state courts may not exercise jurisdiction over the type of personal injury suits brought by the Personal Representatives (i.e. claims by non-Indians against a tribal entity for an injury arising on tribal lands). The Complaint further seeks an injunction barring the Personal Representatives from proceeding in state court. In this light, the absence of the State does not bar complete relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1)(A); Sac & Fox Nation of Mo. v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250, 1258 (10th Cir.2001) (A court is able to afford complete relief when a party's absence "does not prevent the plaintiffs from receiving their requested ... relief.").
The remaining question then, is whether allowing this suit to go forward without the State impermissibly risks impairing the State's ability to protect its interests. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i).
The State further argues that it has an interest in providing citizens with a forum to litigate their personal injury claims against a tribal enterprise that arose on Indian land. A decision by this Court, the State claims, could deprive citizens of a state forum for their claims. The Tenth Circuit, however, has explained that "in some cases the interests of the absent person are so aligned with those of one or more parties that the absent person's interests are, as a practical matter, protected." Davis ex. rel. Davis v. United States, 343 F.3d 1282, 1291-92 (10th Cir.2003). Here, the Personal Representatives — citizens of New Mexico — seek to bring their personal injury claims against Tamaya in state court. They thus have a substantial interest in securing a state forum — the same interest the State seeks to protect on their behalf. In this light, the Personal Representatives' interests are, as a practical matter, aligned with the State's interest.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny the Personal Representatives' motion. The Court will grant Judge Nash's motion to dismiss the claim for injunctive relief, but otherwise deny her motion.
