HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE v. LEMIEUX

6 NICS App. 43, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE v. LEMIEUX (April 2001)

IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION

HOOPA, CALIFORNIA

Hoopa Valley Tribe, Appellant/Defendant,

Joseph LeMieux, Respondent/Plaintiff.

No. A-00-005/C-00-056 (April 13, 2001)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court issued preliminary injunction. Enjoined parties appealed. Court of Appeals holds that interlocutory appeals are not favored and appellants failed to show that the injunction would result in extraordinary injustice or irrevocable harm. Appeal dismissed.

Before: Lawrence Numkena, Chief Justice; Darwin S. Long Fox, Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice.

OPINION

This matter came before the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeal pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed by the Hoopa Valley Tribe. On November 20, 2000, the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court issued a Preliminary Injunction against the Hoopa Valley Indian Housing Authority, Hoopa Valley Public Utilities, Hoopa Valley Tribal Environmental Protection Agency, and Eloise Marshall (Defendants below), wherein they were enjoined from installing a septic system leach field on a lot adjacent to Mr. LeMieux's property. Eighteen days later, on December 8, 2000, the Hoopa Valley Tribe filed a Notice of Appeal from that order of injunction.

Appellant's Notice of Appeal was timely filed pursuant to Hoopa Valley Tribal Code §2.6.01 (as amended in February 2000). Nevertheless, H.V.T.C. §1.4.01 provides that the Appellate Court hear appeals from "final judgments, sentences and other final orders of the Tribal Court." A preliminary injunction is not a final judgment of the Tribal Court.

As this Court held in Hoopa Valley Tribal Council v. Hoopa Valley Tribal Court, 4 NICS App. 181, 182 (Hoopa 1997), “interlocutory appeals are not favored”. Noting that the Hoopa Valley Tribal Code contains no direct authority for interlocutory review, we declined in that case to issue a writ of mandate, which:

6 NICS App. 43, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE v. LEMIEUX (April 2001) p. 44

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. Id.

Allowing the preliminary injunction to stand would not result in extraordinary injustice or irrevocable harm to the interests of Appellant. To the contrary, the trial court, recognizing the likelihood of irreparable harm occurring in the absence of an injunction, issued the preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo.

Further, it does not serve the interests of judicial economy to allow piecemeal appeals. Denial of this appeal does not leave Appellant without relief or recourse. Appellant has preserved his objection to the preliminary injunction. This matter should be allowed to proceed to trial on its merits, subsequent to which a final judgment will be entered. At that point, either party may seek appellate review of the final judgment, as well as any rulings made prior to or during trial, including the preliminary injunction currently at bar.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, this appeal is hereby denied.

The syllabus is not a part of the Court's Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this Reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.