Lorillard
Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), Plaintiffs - Appellants, V. Philip Morris, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. On Appeal From the Judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco the Honorable Chief Judge Marilyn H. Patel Plaintiffs - Appellants Opening Brief. Case No. No.: 00-15080
Fields
- Author
- Alexander, R.
- Audet, W.M.
- Hagan, R.M.
- Mckee, B.J.
- Mcshane, M.
- Mogin, D.J.
- Shub, J.
- Stabile, J.S.
- Thompson, J.J., J.R.
- Audet, W.M.
- Area
- LEGAL DEPT FILE ROOM/CENTRAL FILES
- Type
- PLEA, PLEADING
- Recipient (Organization)
- US Court Appeals 9th Circuit
- Named Person
- Bracker
- Cohen, F.S.
- Lujan
- Patel, M.H.
- Williams
- Cohen, F.S.
- Named Organization
- 8th Northern Indian Pueblos Council of N
- 9th Circuit
- Amer, American Tobacco
- American Samoa
- Apache Tribe of Ok
- Az
- Bat Industries
- Bw, Brown & Williamson
- Chelan Tribe
- Comanche Tribe
- Confederated Tribes of Colville
- Congress
- De Tribe of Western Oh
- District Court
- Entiats Tribe
- Federal Court
- Guam
- Independent Hopi Village of Shungopavi
- Indian
- Kiowa Tribe of Ok
- La Jolla Tribe
- Lakes Tribe
- Methow Tribe
- Moses Columbia Tribe
- Nespelem Tribe
- Nez Perce Tribe
- Northern Mariana Islands
- Okanogan Tribe
- Palouse Tribe
- PM, Philip Morris
- Ponca Tribe
- Puerto Rico
- Rj Reynolds Tobacco Holdings
- RJR, R.J.Reynolds
- San Poil Tribe
- Supreme Court
- Table Bluff Reservation Wiyot Tribe
- US
- US Court Appeals
- US Supreme Court
- Usdc Nd Ca
- Virgin Islands
- Wenatchee Tribe
- 9th Circuit
- Document File
- 98241398/98241522/Litigation Table Bluff V. Philip Morris, Et Al. Court Papers - Volume III
- 98241399/98241521/Litigation Table Bluff V. Philip Morris, Et Al. Court Papers - Volume II
- Date Loaded
- 10 Apr 2002
- Request
- R1-080
- Litigation
- Feda/Produced
- Characteristic
- EXTR, EXTRA
- Site
- N14
- Master ID
- 98241400/1520
Related Documents:- 98241400-1520 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
- 98241427-1469 Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), Plaintiffs - Appellants V. Philip Morris, Incorporated, Defendants - Appellees. Defendants' Appellees Opposition Brief. Case No. : 00-15080
- 98241470 Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot Tribe), Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. Philip Morris Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal From the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, San Francisco Defendants-Appellees' Addendum. Case No.: 00-15080
- 98241471-1479 Forces Action Project Llc, Plaintiffs, V. State of California Defendants. Opinion: Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Denying Motion for Leave to Amend. No. C 99-0607 Mjj
- Author (Organization)
- Alexander Hawes
- Hare Wynn
- Mogin Law Firm
- Native American Tribes
- Sheller Ludwig
- Hare Wynn
- UCSF Legacy ID
- jfj53c00
Document Images
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............................... 1
11. ISSUES ON APPEAL .......................................... .1
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 2
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................... 3
V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 8
VI. ARGUMENT ................................................ 8
A. Overview of Article III Standing ...... . ..................... 8
B. Violation of Tribal Sovereignty ............................ 10
1. The Nature of the Claims ............................ 10
2. Standing to Protect Tribal Sovereignty ................. 14
a. Injury in Fact, Causation and Redressability ........ 14
b. Prudential Requirements ....................... 17
C. Equal Protection Claims .................................. 18
1. The Nature of the Claims ............................ 18
2. Standing to Assert Equal Protection Claims ............. 22
a. Injury in Fact, Causation and Redressability ........ 22
b. Prudential Requirements ....................... 23
spp hnef wpL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
D. Violation of§ 1981 ...................................... 24
1. The Nature of the Claims ............................ 24
2. Standing to Assert a 1981 Claim ...................... 26
a. Injury in Fact, Causation and Redressability ........ 26
b. Prudential Requirements ....................... 27
VII. CONCLUSION .............................................. 28
ii
sF, bnef.~ptl
0
!
CASE NO. No.: 00-15080
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No.: 00-15080
District Court Docket No. C 99-02621-MHP
TABLE BLUFF RESERVATION (WIYOT TRIBE); THE APACHE TRIBE OF
OKLAHOMA; THE COMANCHE TRIBE; THE DELAWARE TRIBE OF
WESTERN OHIO; THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL OF
NEW MEXICO; THE INDEPENDENT HOPI VILLAGE OF SHUNGOPAVI; THE
KIOWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA; THE LA JOLLA TRIBE; PONCA TRIBE; THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COLVILLE CONSISTING OF THE CHELAN
TRIBE, THE ENTIATS TRIBE, THE LAKES TRIBE, THE METHO W TRIBE, THE
MOSES-COLUMBIA TRIBE, THE NESPELEM TRIBE, THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE,
THE OKANOGAN TRIBE, THE PALOUSE TRIBE, THE SANPOIL TRIBE, AND
THE WENATCHEE TRIBE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INC.; R. J.
REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.; AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., INC.; BROWN &
WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.; B.A.T. INDUSTRIES, P.L.C., AND
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO., INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
On Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
San Francisco
The Honorable Chief Judge Marilyn H. Patel
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF
William M. Audet (CA Bar #117456)
ALEXANDER, HAWES & AUDET, LLP
152 North Third Street, Suite 600
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: 408.289.1776
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs-Appellants
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Adarand Constructors Inc v Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) .... . ............. 19
Alfred Snapp & Sons, Inc. v. Puerto Rico 459 U.S. 592 (1982) .......... 16, 22
Association of Data Proc. Serv. Org. v Comp., 397 U.S. 150 (1970) .......... 9
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'1 Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1997) .......... 16
Blum v. Yaretskv,457 U.S. 991 (1982) ................................. 9
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) ..... 17,18
City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Livin Cg enter Inc.,
473 U.S. 432 (1985) ............................................... 19
Clements v. Fashing, 457 U.S. 957 (1982) ............................ 9,10
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group Inc.,
438 U.S.59(1978) ................................................. 9
El Dia, Inc. v. Governor Pedro Rossello,
30 F.Supp.2d 160 (D.C. Puerto Rico 1998) ............................. 23
Fort Vancouver Plywood Co. v. United States, 747 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1985) ... 1
Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1995) ................ 19
Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1982) .......................... 19
Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704 (1987) .................................. 14
Jackson v. Okaloosa County, Florida, 21 F.3d 1531 (11th Cir. 1994) ......... 21
I11
~ a;ec.wa
0
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page
Cases
®ueets Band of Indians v. Washington, 765 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1985) ....... 19
Santa Rosa Band of Indian v. Kings Countv.
532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1975), 429 U.S. 1038 (1977) ...................... 15
Scott v. Eversole Mortuarv, 522 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir. 1973) .............. 24,25
Sierra Club v. Motton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) .............................. 8
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Ri htg Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) .. 9
Sud v. Impact Motors, Ltd., 379 F. Supp. 1064 (W.D. Mich. 1974) .......... 25
United States v. Antelope, 523 F.2d 400 (9th Cir. 1975) ................ 21,22
United States v. Beeav, 42 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1994) ...................... 17
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980) .............. 14
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982) .................... 8,9
Watson v. Fraternal Order of Eagles, 915 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1990) .......... 24
White Mountain Apache v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) ................. 10
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) ........ .. .................. 10, 12,15
Wisconsin Potowatomies of the Hannahville Indian
Community v. Houston, 393 F, Supp. 719 (W.D. Mich. 1973) .............. 18
zpP ~ef wpE
CASE NO. No.: 00-15080
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No.: 00-15080
District Court Docket No. C 99-02621 -MHP
TABLE BLUFF RESERVATION (WIYOT TRIBE); THE APACHE TRIBE OF
OKLAHOMA; THE COMANCHE TRIBE; THE DELAWARE TRIBE OF
WESTERN OHIO; THE EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL OF
NEW MEXICO; THE INDEPENDENT HOPI VILLAGE OF SHUNGOPAVI; THE
KIO WA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA; THE LA JOLLA TRIBE; PONCA TRIBE; THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COLVILLE CONSISTING OF THE CHELAN
TRIBE, THE ENTIATS TRIBE, THE LAKES TRIBE, THE METHOW TRIBE, THE
MOSES-COLUMBIA TRIBE, THE NESPELEM TRIBE, THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE,
THE OKANOGAN TRIBE, THE PALOUSE TRIBE, THE SAN POIL TRIBE, AND
THE WENATCHEE TRIBE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INC.; R. J.
REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.; AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., INC.; BROWN &
WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.; B.A.T. INDUSTRIES, P.L.C., AND
LORILLARD TOBACCO CO., INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
On Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
San Francisco
The Honorable Chief Judge Marilyn H. Patel
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF
William M. Audet (CA Bar #117456)
ALEXANDER, HAWES & AUDET, LLP
152 North Third Street, Suite 600
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: 408.289.1776
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs-Appellants
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
Page
Codes & Statutes
18 U.S.C.§ 1151 .................................................. 5
25 U.S.C. § 461 (Indian Reorganization Act) ........................... 14
28 U.S.C.§ 1291 ................................................... 1
28 U.S.C.§ 1343 :.................................................. 1
28 U.S.C.§ 1362 ...................................................1
28 U.S.C.§§ 1331 .................................................. 1
42 U.S.C. § 1981 .......................................... 7,24,26,27
42 U.S.C. § 1985 ................................................... 7
Other
H.R. Rep. No. 102-40(i) (1991) ...................................... 24
Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, (1982 ed.) ............... 18
L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 147 (1988) ...................... 16
vi
wv e~ee.au
Appellees, Philip Morris, Inc., et al., (hereinafter, the "Tobacco
Manufacturers") and forty-six states and five territories of the United
States.
(2) Whether Native American Tribes have standing to challenge an
agreement between the States and Tobacco Manufacturers which
seeks to impose restrictions and prohibitions, without tribal consent,
on tribal territory; and
(3) Whether Native American Tribes have standing to pursue claims for
discriminating price increases imposed under the Master Settlement
Agreement.
III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 3, 1999, dozens of Native American Tribes filed, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, a class action complaint against the
Tobacco Manufacturers. (Excerpt of Record I (hereinafter, "E.R.").)
On September 13, 1999, the Court heard argument on the Tobacco
Manufacturers' motion to dismiss. (E.R. 50.) On November 12, 1999, the Court a
co
N
.~,.
~
issued its Memorandum and Order granting the Tobacco Manufacturers' motion to ~
\10
0
dismiss and issued a judgment dismissing the case. (E.R. 43.)
2
WM<<,v,d
0
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The District Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343(3) and (4) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362. This Court has jurisdiction
over this appeal pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The District Court's Memorandum and Order dismissing the action is dated
November 12, 1999, and the judgment was entered by the District Court on
November 12, 1999.' The District Court's judgment dismissing this action on
standing grounds disposes of the claims of all parties before the Court. Notice of
Appeal was timely filed on November 19, 1999.
II. ISSUES ON APPEALZ
(1)
Whether Plaintiffs-Appellants, Table Bluff Reservation (Wiyot
Tribe), et al., (hereinafter, the "Native American Tribes") have
standing to challenge their exclusion from the benefits of the Master
Settlement Agreement entered into between the Defendants-
' The District Court subsequently entered an Amended Memorandum and
Order on January 21, 2000.
Z The appropriate standard of review of the District Court's dismissal is de
novo. Fort Vancouver Plywood Co. v. United States, 747 F.2d 547, 552 (9th Cir:
1985).
their members:
Fist, although the Tobacco Manufacturers admit that Native American
representatives were excluded from the Settlement discussion, the Tobacco
Manufacturers included in the Master Settlement Agreement a provision which
imposes a comprehensive regulatory regime restricting the marketing of tobacco
products throughout Indian country, infringing upon the federally protected
sovereignty of every recognized tribal government in the United States with a land
base:
Actions Within Geographic Boundaries of Settling
States. To the extent that any provision of this
Agreement expressly prohibits, restricts, or requires any
action to be taken "within" any Settling State or the
Settling States, the relevant prohibition, restriction, or
requirement applies within the geographic boundaries of
the applicable Settling State or Settling States,
including, but not limited to, Indian country or Indian
trust land within such geographic boundaries.
Master Settlement Agreement, § XVIII(ff) at 147 (emphasis supplied) (E.R. 27 at
147). Neither the Settling States, not the Tobacco Companies, possess the
requisite delegated authority from Congress or the Tribes to apply to Indian
country the entire regulatory scheme created by the Master Settlement
4
appbnefwpd
