4 NICS App. 183, TULALIP TRIBES v. SEVEN ARROWS (April 1997)

IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

    TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION

    MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON

    Tulalip Tribes of Washington, Respondent    

v.

Seven Arrows, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, its Members (John and Jane Does 1-10); and Grand Casinos, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Appellants

    NO. TUL-CI-4/96-499 (April 15, 1997)

SUMMARY

Appeal of trial court order determining jurisdiction and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay. Tulalip Law and Order Code allows parties to appeal from a “final judgment”. Trial court’s determination of jurisdiction and denial of motion to dismiss is not a final order. We deny the appeal and remand the matter to trial court for hearing on the merits.

FULL TEXT

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

This matter came before the Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by Seven Arrows, L.L.C. and Grand Casinos, Inc. (hereinafter “Seven Arrows”). Seven Arrows appeals from the February 25, 1997 trial court Order Determining Jurisdiction and Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay.

This Court on March 12, 1997 ordered the parties to submit briefs addressing the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and reserved ruling on whether to accept the appeal until after review of those briefs. On March 24, 1997 Seven Arrows filed a brief urging this Court to accept the appeal. On March 28, 1997 the Tribe filed its response brief. Upon review of the record and the briefs, this Court hereby finds and orders the following:

Title I, § 1.11 of the Tulalip Law and Order Code specifically addresses appellate proceedings and provides, in relevant part:

Any person who claims, in good faith, that the Tulalip Tribal Court made a mistake in interpreting the law or a mistake in procedure which affected the outcome of a case shall have the right to appeal from the final judgment. . . . [Emphasis added].

4 NICS App. 183, TULALIP TRIBES v. SEVEN ARROWS (April 1997) p. 184

Public policy and fairness issues notwithstanding, the rules governing appellate proceedings are clear in their grant of a “right to appeal from the final judgment” of the Tribal Court. The Tribe contends, and Seven Arrows does not dispute, that the trial court’s determination of jurisdiction and denial of Seven Arrow’s motion to dismiss is not a final order. We agree.

Further, § 1.11.1 grants the right of appeal to a “person who claims . . . that the Tulalip Tribal Court made a mistake . . . which affected the outcome of a case. . . .” As this case has not yet proceeded to trial on the merits, the outcome is yet undetermined. As Respondent Tribe points out, Seven Arrows might not challenge jurisdiction if the trial court renders a judgment in Appellant’s favor. Therefore, the trial court’s Order Determining Jurisdiction does not necessarily affect the outcome of the case.

Finally, it does not serve the interests of judicial economy to allow piecemeal appeals. Seven Arrows argues that the right to appellate review of interlocutory judgments is necessary to protect parties from “extraordinary injustices”. Nevertheless, Appellant fails to allege or establish that any extraordinary injustice would result from allowing this matter to proceed to trial. Even if Appellant were able to establish such prejudice, there is no specific authority in the Tulalip Appellate Code to accept an interlocutory appeal.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Appellant Seven Arrows’ appeal is hereby denied. This matter is remanded to the trial court to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.