The Quinault Indian Nation and the state Department of Natural Resources have filed motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them in December that challenges the Indian Nation’s jurisdiction over Lake Quinault.
The suit was filed on Dec. 31 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma by North Quinault Properties, LLC and Thomas and Beatrice Landreth. It asks the federal court to determine the public’s right to access the lake, its shore and lake bed as well as what rights property owners who live on the lake have.
The Quinault Indian Nation regulates recreational use of the lake for non-tribal members and has implemented fishing and boating bans on the lake in the past, although most of those restrictions are now lifted.
The initial complaint states that jurisdiction of the lake revolves around the Public Trust doctrine, saying navigable waters are preserved for public use and when Washington State joined the union in 1889 it was given “equal footing” as other territories, which included use of public waters.
The Quinault Indian Nation states in its motion to dismiss that the suit is not valid given the tribe’s immunity to lawsuits without its consent as a federally recognized, sovereign nation. The motion also argues that since the land is held in trust for the nation by the United States, with the tribe having beneficial use rights, the U.S. has to be involved in the case in order for it to move forward.
“Because the U.S. has a legal interest in the property, it has to be involved in the case,” said Rob Roy Smith, an attorney representing the Quinault Indian Nation.
A response filed by the plaintiff’s lawyers says the Quinault’s dismissal should be denied as the suit is not filed against the Indian Nation itself or tribal members, but rather tries to determine jurisdiction of the lake, making irrelevant the Quinault’s’ claim of immunity from suit as a sovereign entity.
It also states that the doctrine of tribal immunity does not apply where a state maintains jurisdiction over the property in question, which the plaintiff’s lawyers argue is the case.
Regarding the Nation’s argument that the U.S. is a required party to follow through with legal action, the plaintiff’s lawyers say that position is “premature,” in that there has yet to be a determination regarding as to whether the property is “held in trust such that the United States has an interest in the property.”
“If the motions are granted, we’ll just end up in state court. These are jurisdictional issues,” said Elizabeth Thompson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “It will be up to the client what happens. It’s kind of speculative at this point.”
The Department of Natural Resources’ motion to dismiss cites its immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The argument in the motion quotes the amendment as saying, “… 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.”
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the state defendants are only being provided noticed to have the party be a part of the issues related to those rights associated with Lake Quinault.
Judge Ronald B. Leighton will review the dismissal motions.
According to the Deputy Clerks Office in Tacoma, if the case moves forward, hearing dates won’t be set until a joint status report is filed in April.
No comments:
Post a Comment