4 NICS App. 167, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997)

IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

    HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION

    HOOPA, CALIFORNIA

Hoopa Valley Tribal Council, Petitioner

    v.

    Hoopa Valley Tribal Court, Respondent                

    Troy S. Fletcher & George L. Nixon, III, Real Parties in Interest

    No. C-96-006 (February 13, 1997)

SUMMARY

Petition for Writ of Mandate to reverse trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Issuance of writ of mandate is an extraordinary measure which is discretionary and reserved for those exceptional circumstances in which no other form of relief is available. This matter has not proceeded to trial. The court favors a determination on the merits, after which the parties have available the appeals process. We deny the petition.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Charles R. Hostnik, Justice; Douglas W. Hutchinson, Justice.

This matter came before the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Hoopa Valley Tribal Council’s Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed November 6, 1996. Petitioner requests that this Court issue a Writ of Mandate compelling the trial court to reverse its October 28, 1996 order denying Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner files the request pursuant to Hoopa Valley Code, Title 3, Rule 22.     

As this Court has previously discussed in Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority v. Hoopa Valley Tribal Court; (Real Party in Interest, Clarence Lewis, Sr.), 4 NICS App. 164 (Hoopa 1997) (hereinafter “Lewis”), the Hoopa Valley Code contains no provision governing use of the writ. Furthermore, issuance of a writ of mandate is an extraordinary measure which is discretionary and reserved for those exceptional circumstances in which no other form of relief is available. See Lewis, fn 1.

The Hoopa Valley Tribal Council on September 12, 1996 filed a motion with the trial court seeking summary judgment in its favor. The trial court denied that motion. Petitioner did not file

4 NICS App. 167, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997) p. 168

an appeal from that judgment to this Court; therefore, whether the denial of summary judgment is a reviewable order is not an issue we will address. Nevertheless, Petitioner is not left without remedy. The court favors a determination on the merits. This matter can and should proceed to trial on the merits. Upon entry of a final judgment, the parties will have the process of appeal at their disposal.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by the Hoopa Valley Tribal Council is denied.