Vegas Lawyer
Helping People Who
Were Hurt In Nevada

Dempsey, Roberts
& Smith, Ltd.
Attorneys-At-Law




Vegas Lawyer
Nevada Legal Help


Home
Mesothelioma
Slip & Fall
Medical Injury
Product Defect
Other Claims
Articles
Contact Us


Las Vegas Lawyer

Vegas Injury Law

Welcome to Vegas Lawyer. This site is for people who were hurt in Nevada. Contact us for a free consultation. You may want to read the Las Vegas Personal Injury Law introduction on our home page. Also, you can get an overview of other Nevada Legal Topics before you read the Article below.

vegaslawyer.net


  • Tribal Sovereign Immunity












  • Tribal Sovereign Immunity

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

    No. 1366 August Term, 1996

    (Argued: May 12, 1997 Decided: May 23, 1997)

    Docket No. 96-9222


    EMILIA ROMANELLA,

    Plaintiff-Appellant,

    v.

    RICHARD HAYWARD; MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION,

    a federally recognized tribe that owns reservation

    lands and non-reservation lands in Ledyard,

    Connecticut; RICHARD LIBBY, Director of Maintenance,

    Defendants-Appellees.


    Before: CARDAMONE and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and ROSS, District Judge.*

    Appeal from a judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Alan H. Nevas, Judge) dismissing a negligence action against an Indian tribe on grounds of lack of diversity jurisdiction and tribal sovereign immunity. Affirmed.

    ROBERT I. REARDON, The Reardon Law Firm, P.C., New London, Connecticut, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

    DAVID S. WILLIAMS, Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast, Lahan & King, P.C. (Elizabeth Conway, of counsel), Norwich, Connecticut, for Defendants-Appellees.

    PER CURIAM: Emilia Romanella appeals from Judge Nevas's dismissal of her negligence action on grounds of lack of diversity jurisdiction and Indian tribal sovereign immunity. We agree that an Indian tribe is not a citizen of any state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. See Romanella v. Hayward, 933 F. Supp. 163, 165-67 (D. Conn. 1996). The district court was correct in treating the tribe as an indispensable party and holding that it could exercise diversity jurisdiction only if the tribe -- whose reservation is wholly located in Connecticut -- were a citizen of Connecticut. Id. at 166. Because the lack of diversity of citizenship is a fatal bar to the exercise of jurisdiction, we need not reach the question of whether sovereign immunity would bar Romanella's suit. We write further only to underline that the conclusion that an Indian tribe is not a citizen of any state is reinforced by the requirement that we strictly construe the diversity statute. See Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270 (1934); see also Indianapolis v. Chase Nat'l Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 76 (1941); Gilman v. BHC Securities, Inc., 104 F.3d 1418, 1428 (2d Cir. 1997). Romanella asks us to treat the tribe as an unincorporated association, but in light of Indian tribes' status as "'distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights,'" Reich v. Mashantucket Sand & Gravel, 95 F.3d 174, 178 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 559 (1832), and citing Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 16 (1831)), and their "unique status as . . . aboriginal entit[ies]" antedating the federal government, id., it is doubtful at best whether an Indian tribe could be considered a citizen of any state. Indeed, other domestic sovereigns -- i.e. the states themselves -- cannot sue or be sued in diversity. Because the case for considering an Indian tribe a citizen of a state is tenuous at best, the diversity statute's provision for suits between citizens of different states, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), strictly construed, cannot be said to embrace suits involving Indian tribes.

    Nor is this result unusual. We have found a lack of jurisdiction based on a strict construction of the diversity statute even where the Congressional rationale for not providing for diversity jurisdiction is far less clear than in this case. See Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that diversity fails in suit involving United States citizens domiciled abroad). Romanella argues that our construction of the diversity statute deprives her of any judicial remedy. However, assuming arguendo that Romanella's suit is not barred by tribal sovereign immunity, there is no reason that she cannot seek relief in state court. If, on the other hand, the Connecticut state courts would for any reason deny relief, then we also must deny relief. See Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 191-92 (1947) (holding that federal court sitting in diversity must follow state law and policy and therefore cannot give that which state has withheld).

    We therefore affirm.

    *** Any law, statute, regulation or other precedent is subject to change at any time ***

    **The laws cited may not apply in your jurisdiction - Consult a local lawyer.**


    Index | Home

    Contact David Matheny, Esq. for a free consultation.

    (702) 388-1229




    Lawyer Search | Attorney Finder


    Search for more information on Vegas Law and Las Vegas Lawyers:

       




    Las Vegas Legal Help
    Nevada Law


















    Vegas Lawyer
    Vegas Lawyers

    Index | Home

    Find A Lawyer By State | Search For Attorneys By City | Get Legal Information | Contact Us





    DEMPSEY, ROBERTS & SMITH, LTD.
    520 South Fourth Street, Suite 360
    Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

    Las Vegas Lawyer - Las Vegas Attorney - Las Vegas Personal Injury Lawyer

    Neither the State Bar of Nevada nor any agency of the State Bar has certified any lawyer identified here as a specialist or as an expert.  Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability. This site is intended for Nevada residents and those with legal issues arising under the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada.  This site does not give legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.  Laws are different in other states and localities, consult a local attorney.

    The information in this web site is provided for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute legal advice. The use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Further communication with an attorney through the web site and e-mail may not be considered as confidential or privileged. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss the contents of this web site. Any laws, rules or statutes giving any information, restrictions or deadlines, are always subject to change at any time - Contact a local attorney to obtain the current status of such information.

    In the series of Articles on this site, many government PSAs and other information are excerpted. All such materials are believed to be in the public domain. If any work is protected, contact the webmaster at any of the e-mail links and the material will be taken off the site immediately.

    If you experience unusual problems with this site or discover bad links, please email the webmaster. Thank you.

    Copyright: David Matheny, 2003-2005.