Tobacco Documents Online

9a241402

0 TAB PARTY PLEADING FILED/SERVED 12. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Reply Memo in Further 08/09/99 Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Prelimin Injunction 13. Defendants Certain Defendants' Expedited 08/26/99 Motion for Postponement of Case Mana ement Deadlines 14. Court [Proposed] Order Regarding Case 08/27/99 Mana ement Deadlines 15. Court Judgment (granting defendants' 11 / 12 / 99 motion to dismiss 16. Plaintiffs Notice of A eal 11 18 99 17. Court Amended Memorandum and Order 01 21 00 VOLUME II 18. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs-A ellants O enin Brief 03 06 00 19. Defendants Defendants-A ellees' O enin Brief 04 04 00 20. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs-A ellants' Re 1 Brief 04 19 00 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

19

3. The Tribes Fail To State A Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ............................................................................. 24 C. The Complaint Also'Fails Under The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine . ................................................................................... 27 VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 29 -u-

INDEX OF PLEADINGS CASE NAME: TABLE BLUFF RESERVATION (WIYOT TRIBE) v. PHILIP MORRIS, et al. (LTC) Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Case Number: C99-02621 VOLUME I TAB PARTY PLEADING FILED/SERVED 1. LTC Class Action Complaint for 06/02/99 (F) Declarato Jud ment, etc. 06 11 99 S 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 06/24/99 (S) Memo in Su ort 3. Plaintiffs Affidavit and Exhibits in support of 06/24/99 (S) Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction See Se arate File) 4. Parties Stipulation re Extension of Time to 06/28/99 Res ond to Com laint 5. Defendants Certain Defendants' Expedited 07/26/99 Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Dismiss and Memo in Su ort 6. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Opposition to Tobacco 07/26/99 Company Defendants' Notice of Related Case 7. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' 07/27/99 Motion for Leave to File a Motion to Dismiss S. Defendants Certain Defendants' Memo in 07/28/99 Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 9. Court Order (that Table Bluff and Forces 08/05/99 Action are not related cases under Civil L.R. 3-12 b 10. Court Order Granting Certain Defendants' 08/05/99 Expedited Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss 11. Plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Memo in Opposition to 08/09/99 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

04/18/00 1B:0 FeLY 415 772 8289 APR 79-2000 WED 01;58 PM A~LEXflNDER,HAWE &AUDE1'SF7 FAX Nu. vuacoiiiio 0 ~ 007/028 1-1 TABLE OF AUT'HO12I`CLES (continued) Pagc Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County, 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1975 ................................ ,......... 5 Segundo v. City of Ranbho Mirage, 813 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1987) ......... 4,7 Simon v. Eastcrn Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) . . . . . . ........ 6 The Forces Action Project, LLC, v. State of California 200 U.S..Distr. LEXIS 163 (N.p. Cal. 2000) ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 United Mine Workers v_ Pennington, 381 U.S, 657 (1965) .................. 13 United States v. Hayes, 515 U.S, 737 (1995) . . . ........... . . ............. 2 United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973) ........................ . . . . 3 United States v_ Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) ..................... . . . . 1,8 Warthv.Seldin,422U.S.490(1975) ................................. 5, 6 Washington v. Corcfedcrated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S.134(1980) ................................................ 4 Codes, Statutes 42 U.S.C.- § 1981 ....... ........................................ .8,10 42 U.S.C.§.1985(3)............... . ................................ .... 8 Treatises F.COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDLCtAi. INDIAN LAW 122 (1941) ......... 8 nt ,ry,, "d

H. Joseph Escher III HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 434-1600 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Frederick D. Baker SEDGWICK DETERT MORAN & ARNOLD One Embarcadero Center, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3628 (415) 781-7900 Peter Bellacosa KIRKLAND & ELLIS 153 East Fifty-Third Street New York, NY 10022-4675 (212) 446-4800 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company Shannon L. Spangler Caroline Strotz SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Market Place Steuart Street Tower, Ninth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 904-6300 Jeffrey S. Nelson Christine L. Novak SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Kansas City Place 1200 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64 1 05-2 1 1 8 (816) 474-6550 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Lorillard Tobacco Company

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .....................................................1 II. ISSUES ON APPEAL .......................................................................... 1 III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................. I IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................... 3 V. SUNIIvIARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................ 5 VI. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 6 A. The Tribes Do Not Present a "Case or Controversy................... 6 1. The Tribes Fail to Present a Case or Controversy Regarding Alleged Interference with Tribal Sovereignty ....................................................................... 7 2. The Tribes Fail to Present a Case or Controversy Regarding Their Claimed Exclusion from the MSA or Its Benef ts ................................................................. 12 a. "Exclusion" From The MSA ...............................12 b. "Exclusion" From The Benefits of the MSA...... 14 3. The Tribes Fail to Present a Case or Controversy Regarding Post-MSA Product Price Increases ..............15 B. The Tribes Fail To State A Claim Upon Which Relief C an B e Grant e d . ... ....... ........ ..................................... ................ 19 1. The Tribes Fail to State a Claim For Infringement of Tribal Sovereignty . .................................................... 19 2. The Tribes Fail to State a Claim for Violation of the Equal Protection Clause ........................................... 22

04/18/00 18:08 FAX 415 772 8288 HEW2t LLP SF7 APR 19-2000 WED 02 09 PM 1,9LEiRNDER, HAWES&AUDET FAX No, 4ua?.a n r rb 121 024~ °z8 W CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 32(e)(4), I certify that the opcning brief is proportionally spaced, has a typeface of 14 points and, according to the WordPerfect word processinS application used to prepare this brief, contains 3,767 words, ALEXANDBR, HAWES & AUDET, LLP s : 114 1* . ....~7` William M. Au Atrorneysfor the Plaintfffs-Appellants Native American YYibes 'a,I, W.d

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Defendant-Appellee Philip Morris Incorporated has the following parent corporation: Philip Morris Companies Inc. Philip Morris Companies Inc. is the only publicly held company that owns 10% or more of Philip Morris Incorporated's stock. Defendant-Appellee R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has the following parent corporation: RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp. RJR Nabisco, Inc. RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp. is the only publicly held company that owns 10% or more of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's stock. Defendant-Appellee Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company) has the following parent corporations: British American Tobacco p.l.c. British American Tobacco p.l.c. is the only publicly held company that owns 10% or more of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation's stock. Defendant-Appellee Lorillard Tobacco Company has the following parent corporations: Lorillard, Inc. Loews Corporation Lorillard Tobacco Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lorillard, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corporation, which has outstanding securities in the hands of the public.