Phillip Trujillo and Salvador Gonzalez v. Roger Foster, et al.

Case Number: A-1-CA-40743

Judge: James A. Noel

Court: District court, San Doval County, New Meixco

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Bernalillo Indian Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Bernalillo Indian Law Lawyer Directory

Description:

Bernalillo, New Mexico indian law lawyers represented the parties in an employment law case.

{¶1} Plaintiffs Phillip Trujillo and Salvador Gonzalez were terminated from their positions with the Pueblo of Santa Ana's (the Pueblo) Police Department (the Department) and sued Defendants Roger Foster, Patrick Segura, Timothy
Menchego, Greg Aguino, and Bonadelle Candelaria, each in their individual capacity. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and (1) declined to exercise subject matter jurisdiction because to do so "would undermine the authority of tribal courts over Pueblo affairs, and thus would infringe on the right of the Pueblo's sovereign authority to govern itself'; and (2) determined that Defendants would be entitled to sovereign immunity if the state court had jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.
Trujillo v. Foster, A-1-CA-40743 (N.M. App. Apr 23, 2024)



{¶2} Plaintiffs request that this Court reverse the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.[1] In its order, the district court determined that (1) "application of New Mexico law . . . would infringe on the right of the Pueblo's sovereign authority to govern itself"; and (2) the Pueblo was the real party in interest and "Plaintiffs' claims in this case are barred by sovereign immunity." This Court reviews "an appeal from an order granting or denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction" de novo. Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe, 2017-NMSC-007, ¶ 17, 388 P.3d 977. In motion to dismiss briefing, the parties provided additional "facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depend[ed]," and the district court could therefore consider evidence beyond the allegations in the complaint to make factual determinations to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. See South v. Lujan, 2014-NMCA-109, ¶¶ 8-9, 336 P.3d 1000 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Normally, we would review the district court's factual determinations under a substantial evidence standard. See Ponder v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2000-NMSC-033, ¶ 7, 129 N.M. 698, 12 P.3d 960. But because on appeal, Plaintiffs concede the district court's factual determinations, we only review the application of law to those facts. See id.

{¶3} Plaintiffs primarily challenge the dismissal by arguing that Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155 (2017), created a new test for tribal sovereign immunity and implicitly overruled Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), as well as the application of what New Mexico courts have referred to as "tribal sovereign authority." See Haamatsa, Inc., 2017-NMSC-007, ¶ 26 (distinguishing tribal sovereign immunity and "tribal sovereign authority"). Plaintiffs contend that under this new test "actions against tribal individuals do not implicate sovereign immunity, or involve the relevant tribe directly enough to make the tribe a real party in interest," and because in this case, Defendants were named in their individual capacities in the complaint, tribal sovereign immunity does not apply. We first address Plaintiffs' overarching argument that Lewis overruled Williams and the concept of improper infringement on tribal sovereign authority adopted by Williams to limit state court's subject matter jurisdiction over matters occurring on Indian lands. Then, we review the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss based on (1) improper infringement, and (2) tribal sovereign immunity.

Trujillo v. Foster, A-1-CA-40743 (N.M. App. Apr 23, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: