Incorporating Federal Indian Law in Teaching the Doctrines of Preclusion in a First-Year Civil Procedure Course

Barbara Atwood
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

 

      This presentation will focus on inter-system judgment recognition involving tribal court decrees. The background law for the exercise is Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (1963); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738; and the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Recognition of Tribal Court Civil Judgments (excerpted below). Using a series of hypothetical fact patterns, I will highlight the different recognition principles that apply to judgments from state court and tribal court as if I were teaching a first-year Civil Procedure class. In each hypothetical case, the only issue will be whether an Arizona state court should recognize and enforce the judgment. Participants will be asked to identify the arguments for and against recognition, to articulate the differences in receptivity to tribal courts decrees and state court decrees, and to explore the underlying rationales. In Civil Procedure, I use this exercise to acquaint students early in their law school careers with the existence of tribal court systems, the concept of tribal sovereignty, and the problem of inter-system recognition of judgments. The main pedagogical goals of the exercise are to illustrate the differences between full faith and credit and comity and to encourage students to consider the implications of giving comity to tribal court judgments. Although the subject of federal Indian law is beyond the scope of the first-year course, students can at least acquire an appreciation for jurisdictional conflicts among multiple sovereigns.

Arizona Rules of Procedure For the Recognition of Tribal Court Civil Judgments (excerpts)

  1. Enforcement of Tribal Judgment. A tribal judgment, unless objected to [in a timely manner] shall be recognized and enforced by the courts of this state to the same extent and shall have the same effect as any judgment, order, or decree of a court of this state.

  2. Mandatory Considerations Following Objection. A tribal judgment shall not be recognized and enforced if the objecting party demonstrates to the court at least one of the following:

    1. The trial court did not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction.
    2. The defendant was not afforded due process.

    Discretionary Considerations Following Objection. The superior court may, in its discretion, recognize and enforce or decline to recognize and enforce a tribal judgment on equitable grounds, including:

    1. The tribal judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.
    2. The tribal judgment conflicts with another final judgment that is entitled to recognition.
    3. The tribal judgment is inconsistent with the parties' contractual choice of forum.
    4. Recognition of the tribal judgment or the cause of action upon which it is based is against fundamental public policy of the United States or [Arizona].

     

Case # 1

      Axis Trucking Company is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Arizona with its principal place of business in Phoenix. Barry is a citizen of New Mexico. Barry and Axis entered into a contract under which Barry was hired as a cross-country driver. The employment agreement provided that all disputes arising out of the contract would be litigated in the state courts of Arizona. Barry sued Axis in the state court of New Mexico for breach of contract when the company allegedly failed to compensate him according to the terms of the contract. Axis moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of the forum selection clause. The state court denied the motion, reasoning that the forum selection clause could not oust the state court of its proper jurisdiction. The case proceeded through litigation and final judgment for Barry in the amount of $100,000.

      Because Axis has refused to satisfy the judgment, Barry now seeks to enforce the New Mexico state court judgment in an Arizona state court. Axis argues that the New Mexico judgment is unenforceable because of the forum selection clause.

How should the Arizona state court rule?

     

Case # 2

      Axis Trucking Company is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Arizona with its principal place of business in Phoenix. Barry is a member of the Navajo Nation, residing on the reservation. Barry and Axis entered into a contract under which Barry was hired as a cross-country driver. The employment agreement provided that all disputes arising out of the contract would be litigated in the state courts of Arizona. Barry sued Axis in Navajo district court for breach of contract when the company allegedly failed to compensate him according to the terms of the contract. Axis moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of the forum selection clause. The tribal court denied the motion, reasoning that the forum selection clause could not oust the tribal court of its proper jurisdiction. The case proceeded through litigation and final judgment for Barry in the amount of $100,000.

      Because Axis has refused to satisfy the judgment, Barry now seeks to enforce the Navajo tribal court judgment in an Arizona state court. Axis argues that the tribal court judgment is unenforceable because of the forum selection clause.

How should the Arizona state court rule?

     

Case # 3

      Axis Trucking Company is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Arizona with its principal place of business in Phoenix. Barry is a member of the Navajo Nation, residing on the reservation. Barry and Axis entered into a contract under which Barry was hired as a cross-country driver. Barry sued Axis in Navajo district court for breach of contract when the company allegedly failed to compensate him according to the terms of the contract. Axis moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The tribal court denied the motion, reasoning that the contract was with a member of the Navajo Nation and was to be partly performed on tribal land. The case proceeded through litigation and final judgment for Barry in the amount of $100,000.

      Because Axis has refused to satisfy the judgment, Barry now seeks to enforce the Navajo tribal court judgment in an Arizona state court. Axis argues that the tribal court judgment is unenforceable because of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

How should the Arizona state court rule?

     

Case #4

      Axis Trucking Company is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Arizona with its principal place of business in Phoenix. Barry is a resident of New Mexico. Barry and Axis entered into a contract under which Barry was hired as a cross-country driver. Barry sued Axis in United States District Court in New Mexico for breach of contract when the company allegedly failed to compensate him according to the terms of the contract. Axis moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Axis argued that Barry was in fact domiciled in Arizona and that the federal court thus lacked diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. The federal court denied the motion, reasoning that Barry was domiciled in New Mexico. The case proceeded through litigation and final judgment for Barry in the amount of $100,000.

      Because Axis has refused to satisfy the judgment, Barry now seeks to enforce the New Mexico federal court judgment in an Arizona state court. Axis argues that the federal court judgment is unenforceable because of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

How should the Arizona state court rule?