Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe

In April 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint in Utah state court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint sought a declaration as to the authority of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the "Tribe") over non-Indian businesses operating on certain categories of land. It also alleged that Dino Cesspooch, Jackie LaRose, and Sheila Wopsock (individuals affiliated with the Ute Tribal Employment Rights Office ("UTERO")), had harassed and extorted plaintiffs in violation of state law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in state court by way of a special appearance, arguing that service of process had been insufficient, that the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the absence of a valid waiver of tribal sovereign immunity, that the Tribe and its officers were immune from suit but were necessary and indispensable parties, and that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies in tribal court. Cesspooch and LaRose were properly served. Two attorneys for the defendants moved for pro hac vice admissions. The motions were granted. Following a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the state court ordered further briefing on whether defendants' motion constituted a general appearance and authorized substituted service on the Tribe and Wopsock. The court then granted plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint adding additional defendants. The Tribe, Cesspooch, LaRose, and Wopsock were served the amended complaint. The Tribe filed a notice of removal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its notice, the Tribe stated that Cesspooch, LaRose, and Wopsock consented to removal, and that the remaining defendants would consent. The remaining defendants (save one) filed consent and joinders to removal. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the initial defendants waived their right to removal (or to consent to removal) by litigating in state court, removal was untimely, the defendants had not unanimously consented to removal, and that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion to remand. The Tribe appealed the remand order. The Tenth Circuit dismissed this appeal, finding that under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), a district court order remanding a case to state court was "not reviewable on appeal or otherwise." Further, the Court held that a district court order remanding because the defendants did not unanimously join or consent to removal was patently "not reviewable." In addition, the Court concluded that the remand order in this case was colorably characterized as being based on lack of unanimity. View "Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe" on Justia Law