4 NICS App. 181, 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

SUMMARY

Motion for reconsideration of prior appellate court decision denying petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate. Hoopa Valley Law and Order Code does not permit appellate review prior to entry of final judgment. We deny the motion for reconsideration.

FULL TEXT

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

By motion dated February 12, 1997, Petitioner has requested that this Court reconsider its decision denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate which was issued on February 5, 1997. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed with the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals on February 13, 1997. Attached to the Motion was a Certificate of Service showing that it was served upon the spokesperson for the Real Party in Interest, as well as the Respondent. No responses to the Motion for Reconsideration have been received since the date it was filed and served on the opposing parties.

The essence of the Petitioner’s argument on reconsideration is that no right to appeal exists under the Hoopa Valley Law and Order Code except within “10 days from the entry of judgment”. See Hoopa Valley Law and Order Code, § 1.7.03. See, also, Title 3, Rule 22 of the Hoopa Valley Rules of Court. As pointed out by the Petitioner, the trial court’s denial of the summary judgment motion was not a judgment which could be appealed:

“Judgment” is defined by the Hoopa Valley Tribal Law and Order Code as “an order of the Court awarding money damages to be paid to the injured party, or directing the surrender of certain property to the injured party, or the performance of some other act for the benefit of the injured party.” Title 2, § 2.5.03. “Judgment” is also defined as the “official and authentic

4 NICS App. 181, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT (February 1997) p. 182

decision of a court of justice upon the respective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and submitted to its determination.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th ed. “Judgment” is also defined as the “final decision of the court resolving the dispute and determining the rights and obligations of the parties.” Id. A denial of summary judgment is not a judgment, rather, it is an order. “Order” is defined as “[d]irection of a court or judge made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment, which determines some point or directs some step in the proceedings. Id.

    As the denial of summary judgment is not a judgment, but instead is an order, appeal will not lie from an order pursuant to Title I, § 1.7.03 or Title 3, Rule 22 . . .

Motion for Reconsideration, Clarification and Reinstatement of Petition for Writ of Mandamus, pp. 2, 3.

We agree with the Petitioner. Interlocutory appeals are not favored. There is no direct authority for an interlocutory appeal under the Hoopa Valley Law and Order Code. It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that such authority exists. As pointed out by this Court’s previous Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandate in Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority v. Hoopa Valley Tribal Court (Real Party in Interest, Clarence Lewis, Sr.), 4 NICS App. 164 (Hoopa 1997), the Hoopa Valley Law and Order Code contains no provision governing use of a writ of mandate. Issuance of a writ of mandate, like review of an interlocutory order, is an extraordinary measure which is discretionary and reserved to those exceptional circumstances in which no other form of relief is available.

In this case Petitioner is attempting to appeal the denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment. The denial of that Motion presumably permits the case to proceed to trial, and to final judgment. Once a final judgment is issued, Petitioner will have the right to appeal that final judgment, as well as any rulings made prior to or during trial, under § 1.7.03 of the Hoopa Valley Law and Order Code. Therefore, Petitioner is not without a remedy. As Petitioner so eloquently argues, the Hoopa Valley Law and Order Code does not permit appellate review prior to entry of final judgment. That Code, however, does permit appellate review of a final judgment, assuming a notice of appeal is filed within 10 days of that judgment.

On the foregoing basis Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.