Howard Ex Rel. United States v. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation

Ninth Circuit

Howard Ex Rel. United States v. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation

608 F. App'x 468

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 15, 2015

Docket13-16118

StatusUnpublished

This text of 608 F. App'x 468 (Howard Ex Rel. United States v. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howard Ex Rel. United States v. Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation, 608 F. App'x 468 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants Thomas Howard and Robert Weldy (“Relators”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaint against the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (the “Tribe”). We affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that the Tribe, like a state, is a sovereign that does not fall within the definition of a “person” under the FCA. Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 778-87, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 886 (2000) (applying the “longstanding interpretive presumption that ‘person’ does not include the sovereign,” to be “disregarded only upon some affirmative showing of statutory intent to the contrary”). As the district court explained, “the same historical evidence and features of the FCA’s statutory scheme that failed to rebut the presumption' for the states in Stevens, here similarly fail to rebut the presumption for sovereign Indian tribes.” Therefore, Relators have failed to state a claim under the FCA, and the action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Relators’ Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment. “A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). In addition, the Tribe’s charter has been a public document since 1936 and is not “newly discovered” evidence. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellants Thomas Howard and Robert Weldy (“Relators”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their False Claims Act (“FCA”) complaint against the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (the “Tribe”). We affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that the Tribe, like a state, is a sovereign that does not fall within the definition of a “person” under the FCA. Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 778-87, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 886 (2000) (applying the “longstanding interpretive presumption that ‘person’ does not include the sovereign,” to be “disregarded only upon some affirmative showing of statutory intent to the contrary”). As the district court explained, “the same historical evidence and features of the FCA’s statutory scheme that failed to rebut the presumption' for the states in Stevens, here similarly fail to rebut the presumption for sovereign Indian tribes.” Therefore, Relators have failed to state a claim under the FCA, and the action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Relators’ Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment. “A motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.2009) (citation omitted). In addition, the Tribe’s charter has been a public document since 1936 and is not “newly discovered” evidence. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 F. App'x 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-ex-rel-united-states-v-shoshone-paiute-tribes-of-the-duck-valley-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack