Narragansett v. Guilbert, 1st Cir. (1993)

USCA1 Opinion
March 24, 1993

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-1622
NARRAGANSETT TRIBE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
PAUL E. GUILBERT,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Brown,* Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Mark B. Morse for appellants.
_____________
Bruce N. Goodsell for appellee.
_________________
____________________
____________________
_____________________
*Of the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Judge Brown (
deceased) heard oral argument in this matter, and participated in
semble, but did not participate in the drafting or the issuance of
panel's opinion.
The remaining two panelists therefore issue t
opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
46(d).
BREYER, Chief Judge.

____________
appeal
is
sovereign
process
the
whether
immunity
the
Narragansett
from claims
and slander of title.
Tribe
does possess
The sole question
against
We have
sovereign
Indian
Tribe
has
it
for abuse
of
recently held that
immunity.
Maynard
_______
Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 92-2106, slip. op. at

_________________________
Cir. January 27, 1993).
And, that decision requires
reverse a default judgment entered against the Tribe.

I
on this
v.
4 (1st
us to
Background
__________
On December 6, 1990, the Narragansett Indian Tribe
brought a lawsuit in Rhode Island federal court against Paul
Guilbert, an adjacent landowner.
held title to
Guilbert's property, and it
Guilbert's planned
filed
sale of that
lis pendens
Charlestown, Rhode
That
The Tribe alleged that
(or
notice
Island,
filing effectively
property and frustrated
The
sell it.
for abuse of process
the
Office.
title to
filed an answer to the federal court complaint.

included counterclaims
with
Records
Guilbert's
his efforts to
Tribe also
pendency)
Land Evidence
clouded
sought to enjoin
property.
of
it
the
Guilbert
That answer
and slander of
title.
The
district court issued a temporary restraining
order,
prohibiting
vacated
the
TRO
the
and
sale,
but, after
denied
the
Tribe's
hearing,
motion
preliminary injunction.
Thereafter, counsel for
moved
the case
to withdraw
insisted
upon a
imprudent."
withdraw.
counsel.
Five
counsel.
Tribe's
course
The
It
district
months
then
because
of action
gave the
Guilbert
claims,
from
Tribe
later, the
asked
to vacate
the
month
Tribe
the
lis
motion
to secure
to
pendens
"has
considers
had not
the court
the Tribe
that counsel
one
for
the Tribe
court granted
it
to
new
secured
dismiss
the
in the
land
office, and to enter a default judgment against the Tribe on

Guilbert's
counterclaims.
The
district
court
granted
Guilbert's motions and, after a hearing on damages (at which

the
Tribe was
represented
by new
counsel), it
entered a
default judgment against the
Tribe for about $50,000 (which
represented
a frustrated
lost profit
financing costs
on
some
related to that failed sale, and legal fees
incurred in defending against the Tribe's

appeals
land sale,
the default judgment.
The Tribe
It claims that its sovereign
immunity renders the default judgment void.

II
The Default Judgment
____________________
-33
suit).
Our
recent
Indian Tribe,
_____________
decision in
No. 92-2106
determines the outcome of

the
Congress's
Claims
January 27,
this appeal.
enactment of
Settlement Act.
Island Indian
lands,
_____
We there
1993),
held that
the
Rhode
Island Indian
Id. at 3 (explaining that the Rhode

__
Claims Settlement Act
subjected the
Tribe's
but not the Tribe itself, "to the civil and criminal
laws and
jurisdiction of
U.S.C.
1708).
waive
Cir.
v. Narragansett
____________
Narragansett Indian Tribe possesses sovereign immunity,
despite
the
(1st
Maynard
_______
Tribe, by
its
the State
of
Rhode Island,"
25
Controlling case law also makes clear that

filing its
immunity
in
suit
respect
against Guilbert,
to
the
did not
counterclaims.
Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe,

___________________
____________________________________
111 S.Ct.
905, 909 (1991);
United States v.
_____________
Fidelity & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 510-12

____________________
counterclaims only to offset
claim, but not
to result
United States
_____________
(1940) (allowing
amounts owed under a principal
in a money
judgment against
the
immune entity); cf. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes v. Hodel,

___ ______________________________
_____
788 F.2d 765, 773-74 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (no waiver of immunity
from cross-claims either).
Consequently, the district court
lacked
Guilbert's
jurisdiction
over
counterclaims,
see,
___
e.g., J.C. Driskill, Inc. v. Abdnor, 901 F.2d 383, 385 n. 4

____ ____________________
______
(4th Cir. 1990), and its default
judgment is void.
Fed. R.
-44
Civ. P. 60(b)(4); 11
Charles A. Wright & Arthur
Federal Practice and Procedure

______________________________
We
relationship
which
add
that
of sovereign
the district
Whether
immunity
we
court
the bringing
from
such
of
R. Miller,
2862 at 198-200 (1973).

have
not
immunity to
Rule 11
mentioned but
a suit
sanctions
in
considered
sanctions,
did not
address.
federal court
raises
very
the
waives
different
considerations not now before us.
See, e.g., Mattingly

___ ____ _________
v.
United States, 939 F.2d 816, 818-19 (9th Cir. 1991) (Federal
_____________
Rules
of Civil
sovereign
immunity
Bowen, 855 F.2d

_____
to
Procedure
Justice
from
waive
Rule 11
the Federal
sanctions);
668, 670-71 (10th Cir.
Act,
28
Government's sovereign
U.S.C.
immunity
Government's
Adamson
_______
v.
1988) (Equal Access
2412(b),
from Rule
waives
11
Federal
sanctions);
United States v. Gavilan Joint Community College Dist., 849

_____________
______________________________________
F.2d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir. 1988).
The judgment of the district court is
Reversed.
_________
-55

Narragansett v. Guilbert, 1st Cir. (1993)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narragansett v. Guilbert, 1st Cir. (1993)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Narragansett v. Guilbert, 1st Cir. (1993)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USCA1 Opinion

March 24, 1993

*Of the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

BREYER, Chief Judge.

and slander of title.

The sole question

recently held that

Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 92-2106, slip. op. at

And, that decision requires

reverse a default judgment entered against the Tribe.

Guilbert's property, and it

The Tribe alleged that

property and frustrated

for abuse of process

filed an answer to the federal court complaint.

district court issued a temporary restraining

Thereafter, counsel for

office, and to enter a default judgment against the Tribe on

Guilbert's motions and, after a hearing on damages (at which

default judgment against the

Tribe for about $50,000 (which

related to that failed sale, and legal fees

incurred in defending against the Tribe's

the default judgment.

It claims that its sovereign

immunity renders the default judgment void.

determines the outcome of

Id. at 3 (explaining that the Rhode

Claims Settlement Act

Narragansett Indian Tribe possesses sovereign immunity,

Controlling case law also makes clear that

Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe,

905, 909 (1991);

Fidelity & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 510-12

amounts owed under a principal

immune entity); cf. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes v. Hodel,

Consequently, the district court

e.g., J.C. Driskill, Inc. v. Abdnor, 901 F.2d 383, 385 n. 4

Charles A. Wright & Arthur

Federal Practice and Procedure

2862 at 198-200 (1973).

considerations not now before us.

See, e.g., Mattingly

Bowen, 855 F.2d

668, 670-71 (10th Cir.

1988) (Equal Access

United States v. Gavilan Joint Community College Dist., 849

You might also like