Ford Motor Company v. Todecheene , 488 F.3d 1215 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                   FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FORD MOTOR COMPANY,                     
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    JOE R. TODECHEENE, as the
    surviving natural parent of Esther
    Todecheene, deceased; MARY                    No. 02-17048
    TODECHEENE, as the surviving
    natural parent of Esther                       D.C. No.
    Todecheene, deceased,                       CV-02-01100-PGR
    Defendants-Appellants,
    and
    NAVAJO NATION DISTRICT COURT;
    LEROY S. BEDONIE, The Honorable,
    Defendants.
    
    6669
    6670            FORD MOTOR CO. v. TODECHEENE
    FORD MOTOR COMPANY,                     
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    JOE R. TODECHEENE, as the
    surviving natural parent of Esther            No. 02-17165
    Todecheene, deceased; MARY
    D.C. No.
    TODECHEENE, as the surviving
    natural parent of Esther                   CV-02-01100-PGR
    Todecheene, deceased,                         AMENDED
    Defendants,             ORDER
    and
    NAVAJO NATION DISTRICT COURT;
    LEROY S. BEDONIE, The Honorable,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    
    Filed June 4, 2007
    Before: Barry G. Silverman, William A. Fletcher, and
    Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.
    ORDER
    The order filed February 1, 2007, is hereby amended. The
    entire text shall be replaced with the following text.
    Joe and Mary Todecheene’s Petition for Rehearing is
    GRANTED in part.
    The opinion in this case, Ford Motor Company v. Todech-
    eene, 
    394 F.3d 1170
    (9th Cir. 2005) is WITHDRAWN.
    The tribal court did not “plainly” lack jurisdiction under the
    second exception, recognized in Montana v. United States,
    FORD MOTOR CO. v. TODECHEENE                6671
    
    450 U.S. 544
    , 565 (1981), to the general rule that tribes do not
    have jurisdiction over non-members. See Boozer v. Wilder,
    
    381 F.3d 931
    , 935 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring exhaustion
    unless the tribal courts plainly lack jurisdiction). As such, the
    appeal is stayed until Ford exhausts its appeals in the tribal
    courts. The panel retains jurisdiction over the appeal. Ford
    will be deemed to have exhausted its tribal remedies once the
    Navajo Nation Supreme Court either resolves the jurisdic-
    tional issue or denies a petition for discretionary interlocutory
    review pursuant to Navajo Nation Code tit. 7, § 303 (“The
    Supreme Court [of the Navajo Nation] shall have the power
    to issue any writs or orders . . . [t]o prevent or remedy any act
    of any Court which is beyond such Court’s jurisdiction.”).
    The parties shall notify this court no later than 15 days from
    the date the Navajo Nation Supreme Court either denies a
    petition for discretionary review, or, if the Navajo Nation
    Supreme Court grants such a petition, the issuance of its opin-
    ion resolving the jurisdictional question.
    The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Joe and Mary
    Todecheene and the Navajo Nation are DENIED as moot,
    and the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed by
    Ford Motor Company are DENIED.
    PRINTED FOR
    ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
    BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
    The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
    © 2007 Thomson/West.