You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Tamiami Partners, Limited v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Tamiami Partners, Limited v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Kenneth Welt, Conservator, Movant-Appellant. Tamiami Partners, Limited v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida

Citations: 999 F.2d 503; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 20716Docket: 93-4375

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; August 16, 1993; Federal Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
In Tamiami Partners, Limited v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit addressed a contract dispute involving the Miccosukee Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and Tamiami Partners, Ltd. (TPL), a Florida limited partnership involved in gaming. The Tribe and TPL entered into a Management and Economic Development Agreement in April 1989 for operating a Class II gaming enterprise under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Following disputes in 1991, the Tribe issued a notice of termination for the agreement in January 1992. TPL demanded arbitration to contest the termination, but the Tribe did not respond and instead filed a claim in tribal court. TPL subsequently filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

The district court, after a hearing, determined it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to assess tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians. It recognized the Tribe's sovereign immunity but concluded that it was waived in the agreement. However, the appellate court ultimately held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, reversing this decision.

The district court vacated its temporary restraining order, denied TPL's preliminary injunction motion, and the Tribe's motion to dismiss, while staying further proceedings until tribal remedies were exhausted or proper notice was given. On July 16, 1992, the Miccosukee Tribal Court ordered arbitration of commercial disputes. During this time, the Tribe denied seventeen gaming license applications and approved sixteen, which TPL viewed as self-help. TPL subsequently sought injunctive relief from the district court to stop the Tribe from denying licenses and to enforce arbitration. Following a hearing, the district court issued a temporary injunction and held evidentiary hearings in August, ultimately determining the Tribe's licensing process was "arbitrary and capricious" but upheld the Tribe's sovereign immunity, vacating the temporary injunction and denying TPL's motions while staying the action.

On August 21, 1992, TPL sought to file a supplemental complaint and requested a preliminary injunction, both of which were denied by the district court on September 15, 1992, leading TPL to appeal. On April 13, 1993, the Agency denied additional gaming license applications and appointed Kenneth Welt as conservator of Miccosukee Indian bingo, leading to TPL’s emergency hearing request. The district court's third omnibus order on April 15 found the Tribe violated notice requirements, exceeded jurisdiction, and declared the license denials and Welt's appointment void, granting TPL injunctive relief. The Tribe then filed for a stay pending appeal, which was granted, consolidating and expediting the appeals.

The Tribe asserts that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction regarding the commercial contract dispute with non-Indians on Indian lands, arguing that the Miccosukee Tribal Court has exclusive jurisdiction unless limited by federal treaties or statutes. The Tribe maintains that it has not waived its sovereign immunity or its regulatory powers over gaming. Welt, another appellant, contends that the Tribe's sovereign immunity bars the lawsuit and claims that the district court, despite having federal jurisdiction to review tribal court actions, cannot exercise this jurisdiction until all tribal remedies are exhausted. The United States, as amicus curiae for the appellants, argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction since contract interpretation does not arise under federal law and that federal jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement. The National Indian Gaming Association, also participating as amicus curiae, supports the view that the dispute does not arise under federal law. Conversely, TPL, the appellee, argues that the case concerns the Tribe's misuse of sovereign immunity rather than a commercial contract dispute and contends that the district court had jurisdiction over the Tribe's licensing process due to exceptions in the exhaustion doctrine to prevent injustice.

The standard of review for subject matter jurisdiction is de novo. The determination of whether a claim arises under federal law is guided by the "well-pleaded complaint" rule, which states that federal jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is evident from the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. In this case, both the verified and supplemental complaints fail to present a federal question, as they assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 while primarily establishing a breach of contract claim without referencing a federal issue.

The February 27, 1992, motion for a preliminary injunction, the July 21, 1992, emergency motion to prevent the Tribe from terminating the management contract, and the August 21, 1992, emergency motion from Tamiami Partners all fail to assert a federal question, only claiming that the Tribe must adhere to arbitration as agreed. On September 16, 1992, TPL filed a memorandum supporting its preliminary injunction motion, suggesting for the first time that federal question jurisdiction exists due to a challenge against the tribal court's jurisdiction. After oral argument on June 4, 1993, TPL acknowledged that its original complaint did not raise a federal question and requested the court to amend the pleadings to address this issue, which the court declined.

TPL’s assertion of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, without the necessary factual support, failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Citing *National Farmers Union Ins. Cos. v. Crow Tribe*, TPL needed to present a claim "arising under" federal law, which includes protection against unlawful tribal court power over non-Indians. However, TPL did not plead such facts. The text further clarifies that federal question jurisdiction does not arise simply from the involvement of an Indian tribe or contracts with one, supported by cases such as *Stock West, Inc. v. United States* and *Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe*. Consequently, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to TPL's failure to present a valid federal question.

The Tribe's waiver of sovereign immunity does not affect the jurisdictional issues at play, necessitating an examination of tribal sovereignty and any alterations to it. Although there is a limited waiver in the parties' agreement, it does not create federal court jurisdiction for a state law breach of contract claim, as established in previous rulings. The district court lacked jurisdiction despite evidence suggesting it could exist, because the complaints did not adequately allege jurisdictional grounds. The court remands the case with instructions for the district court to dismiss unless a new complaint or pleading is filed within thirty days that properly alleges jurisdiction. The conclusion affirms the district court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reversing its previous ruling and remanding for further action. Specific provisions regarding Class II gaming and arbitration clauses within the parties' agreement are noted, detailing the Tribe's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and TPL's requests for arbitration and injunction against the Tribe's interference.

District courts hold original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under U.S. law, as outlined in Section 1331. According to Article 23 of a specific agreement, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has jurisdiction to enforce the agreement’s terms if the Miccosukee Tribe fails to engage in arbitration as specified in Article 12 or does not comply with an arbitration award. A waiver of sovereign immunity by the Tribe becomes effective only after the TPL manager notifies the Miccosukee Tribal Business Council of a complaint, allowing the Tribe 30 days to address it. The Miccosukee Tribal Gaming Agency represents the Tribe's Business Council. Mandel and Sisto are identified as principal figures of TDC. The Tribe and Welt are the appellants, while TPL is the appellee. The district court denied TPL's motion for a supplemental complaint, but the review focuses on whether this could have resolved a jurisdictional issue. Generally, state courts cannot assert jurisdiction over recognized Indian tribes without consent, as established by the Supreme Court. Tribal courts have inherent authority to exercise civil jurisdiction over non-Indians in matters affecting tribal interests. While federal courts can review tribal court decisions, they must defer to tribal jurisdiction unless a lack of jurisdiction is established.