Ford Motor Co. v. Todecheene Ex Rel. Todecheene

Ninth Circuit

Ford Motor Co. v. Todecheene Ex Rel. Todecheene

474 F.3d 1196, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146, 2007 WL 270120

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 1, 2007·No. 02-17048, 02-17165·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

Joe and Mary Todecheene’s Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED in part.

The opinion in this case, Ford Motor Company v. Todecheene, 394 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.2005) is WITHDRAWN. Because our en banc opinion in Smith v. Kootenai College, 434 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.2006), did not resolve the jurisdiction issue presented in this case, we cannot say that the tribal courts in this case plainly lack jurisdiction over the dispute among Ford Motor Company, the Todecheenes and the Navajo Nation. See Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring exhaustion unless the tribal courts plainly lack jurisdiction). Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court with instructions that the district court stay proceedings in this matter pending exhaustion of available proceedings in the tribal courts, including appellate review. See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 16, 107 S.Ct. 971, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987). (“[T]he federal policy supporting tribal self-government directs a federal court to stay its hand in order to give the tribal court a full opportunity to determine its own jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Joe and Mary Todecheene and the Navajo Nation are DENIED as moot.

The panel retains jurisdiction over any further appeals in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Joe and Mary Todecheene’s Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED in part.

The opinion in this case, Ford Motor Company v. Todecheene, 394 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.2005) is WITHDRAWN. Because our en banc opinion in Smith v. Kootenai College, 434 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.2006), did not resolve the jurisdiction issue presented in this case, we cannot say that the tribal courts in this case plainly lack jurisdiction over the dispute among Ford Motor Company, the Todecheenes and the Navajo Nation. See Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring exhaustion unless the tribal courts plainly lack jurisdiction). Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court with instructions that the district court stay proceedings in this matter pending exhaustion of available proceedings in the tribal courts, including appellate review. See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 16, 107 S.Ct. 971, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987). (“[T]he federal policy supporting tribal self-government directs a federal court to stay its hand in order to give the tribal court a full opportunity to determine its own jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Joe and Mary Todecheene and the Navajo Nation are DENIED as moot.

The panel retains jurisdiction over any further appeals in this case.

Ford Motor Co. v. Todecheene Ex Rel. Todecheene, 474 F.3d 1196, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146, 2007 WL 270120 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

474 F.3d 1196 (Ford Motor Co. v. Todecheene Ex Rel. Todecheene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Ford Motor Company v. Joe R. Todecheene, as the Surviving Natural Parent of Esther Todecheene, Deceased Mary Todecheene, as the Surviving Natural Parent of Esther Todecheene, Deceased, and Navajo Nation District Court Leroy S. Bedonie, the Honorable, [474 F.3d 1197] Ford Motor Company v. Joe R. Todecheene, as the Surviving Natural Parent of Esther Todecheene, Deceased Mary Todecheene, as the Surviving Natural Parent of Esther Todecheene, Deceased, and Navajo Nation District Court Leroy S. Bedonie, the Honorable

474 F.3d 1196 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Opinion

Related