CHEHALIS TRIBE v. HILLSTROM AND HILLSTROM

9 NICS App. 94, CHEHALIS TRIBE v. HILLSTROM AND HILLSTROM (April 2010)

IN THE CHEHALIS TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

CHEHALIS INDIAN RESERVATION

OAKVILLE, WASHINGTON

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Indian Reservation, Plaintiff and Appellee,

Rudolph A. Hillstrom, Jr. and Jane Doe Hillstrom, husband and wife, Defendants and Appellants.

No. CHE-CIV-8/06-191, 192 (April 5, 2010)

SYLLABUS^*

Trial court issued order granting partial summary judgment in a civil proceeding. Court of Appeals holds that appellants failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for an interlocutory appeal by permission. Permission to appeal denied.

Before: Robert J. Miller, Chief Judge.

OPINION

Miller, C.J.:

This matter comes before the Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Defendants’ Notice Seeking Permission to Appeal Pursuant to Appellate Rule 6.03.020 which was filed on February 9, 2010. Defendants’ seek permission to appeal the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment entered in this case by the Chehalis Tribal Court on July 28, 2009. Defendants need the permission of this Court to appeal because the decision below granted only a partial summary judgment to Plaintiff. The Chehalis Tribe Appellate Rules allow appeals from trial court orders that are not yet final under Rule 6.03.020 in specific situations.

Pursuant to Appellate Rules 6.03.020-.030 and 6.05.030, I ordered a hearing on this matter. Oral argument on Defendants’ Notice was held telephonically on March 17, 2010.

The burden on a party seeking an interlocutory appeal under 6.03.020 is a heavy one. First, as a general matter, all appellate courts disapprove of interlocutory and piecemeal appeals for valid policy reasons. The gold standard is to allow one appeal after all the trial court proceedings are at an end and there is a final judgment to review. Judicial economy, fairness to

9 NICS App. 94, CHEHALIS TRIBE v. HILLSTROM AND HILLSTROM (April 2010) p. 95

the parties and the court, and numerous other reasonable justifications argue for this standard. See, e.g., Hoopa Valley Tribe v. LeMieux, 6 NICS App. 43, 44 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals, 2001); First Choice Business Machines v. The Tulalip Tribes, 6 NICS App. 1, 2-3 (Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals, 1999); Hoopa Valley Tribal Council v. Hoopa Valley Tribal Court, 4 NICS App. 181, 182 (Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals, 1997); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980); Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945).

In addition to these general principles, the specific and controlling Chehalis Tribe Appellate Rule requires that I grant such an appeal “only if the Chehalis Court of Justice has committed an obvious error which: (a) Would render further proceedings useless; or (b) Substantially limits the freedom of a party to act.” 6.03.020. In my opinion, Defendants failed to show that these requirements are met in this case.

First, in their Notice Seeking Permission to Appeal, Defendants do not even claim that the trial court made an “obvious error.” Instead, they list nine “errors of law” that they allege the trial court committed. That perhaps semantic oversight, however, is not what I base my decision on. In Defendants’ Notice and at oral argument, they did not convince me that the trial court made an “obvious error.” As I questioned the parties at the hearing, it might be possible that the trial court exceeded the summary judgment standards and strayed into the realm of fact finding and credibility decisions. See, e.g., Defendants’ Notice Seeking Permission to Appeal, Exh. A, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, at 3 (lines 20-38), 9 (lines 20-40), 9-10 (lines 47-18). But it is not certain at this stage and I render no opinion on whether the trial court made an “obvious error” in these regards. Furthermore, Defendants totally failed to convince me that any possible error made by the trial judge, obvious or not, “[w]ould render further proceedings useless” or “[s]ubstantially limits the freedom of a party to act.” 6.03.020.

From oral argument and the written filings, it appears that the trial court partial summary judgment order determined liability as to some but not all of the issues in dispute and left for trial a determination of damages on the issues it did decide. It appears certain that further proceedings are not useless and that in fact they are required after that court’s decision. At oral argument both parties agreed that at most two days of trial would be required to determine damages. Defendants’ might prevail at this phase or they might be content with whatever judgment is finally rendered and perhaps no appeal will ever be filed in this case. Further proceedings were not rendered useless by this partial summary judgment order. In addition, this Court cannot conceive of a scenario in which that order “substantially limits the freedom of a party to act.”

In conclusion, defendants have not carried their heavy burden to establish the need or the right to an interlocutory appeal under the general principles of appellate practice nor under the Chehalis Appellate Rules.

9 NICS App. 94, CHEHALIS TRIBE v. HILLSTROM AND HILLSTROM (April 2010) p. 96

IT IS THE ORDER of this Court that Defendants’ Notice Seeking Permission to Appeal is denied. This case should proceed to a final judgment in the Chehalis Tribal Court.

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.