us. washington · washington sub-proceeding 05-3. in swinomish motion for partial summary judgment...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Plaintiff, vs.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,

Defendant.

No. C70-9213 - PHASE I

Sub-proceeding 05-4

SWINOMISH MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Noted for: December 7, 2012


The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community ("Swinomish"), a participating party in this sub-

proceeding, moves for partial summary judgment declaring that the Suquamish Indian Tribe

("Suquamish") does not have usual and accustomed fishing places ("U&As") in Penn Cove,

Saratoga Passage, and Holmes Harbor. The motion is based upon the preclusive effect of the

judgment entered and issues decided by this Court in US. v. Washington Sub-proceeding 05-3. In


of9

Office of Tribal Attorney SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY

11404 Moorage Way LaConner, Washington 98257

TEL 360/466-3163· FAX 360/466-5309

Case 2:05-sp-00004-RSM Document 193 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

filing this motion we express no view on the merits of the broader claims of the Tulalip Tribes

concerning these and other marine areas.

Because the motion is based on the preclusive issue effect of a prior decision, there is no

genuine issue of material fact. A motion for summary judgment is the appropriate vehicle for

addressing the preclusive effect of a prior judgment. 18 Moore's Federal Practice § 132.05[7].

The argument for preclusion is straightforward. In Subp. 05-3 this Court ruled that

Suquamish did not have U&As in Skagit Bay or Saratoga Passage because Judge Boldt did not

intend to include those waters. Subp. 05-3 Dkt. No. 198; Declaration of James M. Jannetta

("Jannetta Dec.") 1-15. This determination was based on the Court's finding that there was no

evidence before Judge Boldt at the time the U&A decision was made that Suquamish fished or even

traveled through the waters on the east side ofWhidbey Island. Id.; Jannetta Dec 12. The decision

and finding are preclusive as to Penn Cove, Saratoga Passage and Holmes Harbor.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

In this case the Tulalip Tribes seeks a declaration that Suquamish does not have U&As in

various marine waters east, south and west ofWhidbey Island, including the waters addressed in this

motion: Penn Cove, Saratoga Passage, and Holmes Harbor. Subp. 05-4 Dkt. Nos. 1, 81. These

waters, shown on the map atJannettaDec. 16 and also attached to this motion, p. 1, areallpartofthe

"nearly enclosed or inland waters to the east of Whidbey Island." Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v.

Washington, 590 F.3d 1020, 1024 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2010).

Sub-proceeding 05-3 also dealt with Suquamish U&As in the waters east ofWhidbey Island.

Sub


of9



TEL 360/466-3163· FAX 360/466-5309


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Suquamish did not have U&As in Skagit Bay or in the northern portion of Saratoga Passage where

Upper Skagit fished. Subp. 05-3, Dkt. No. p. 1; Jannetta Dec. 17. Swinomish filed a cross-claim

that added to the sub-proceeding the remaining waters of Saratoga Passage, where Swinomish fishes

but Upper Skagit does not. Subp. 05-3, Dkt No. 44, pp. 1-2; Jannetta Dec. 18-19.

In pleading its claim Swinomish invoked the continuing jurisdiction of the Court under

Paragraph 25(a)(1) based on "actions intended or effected" by Suquamish in violation of the Court's

decrees. U.S. v. Washington, 384F. Supp. 312,419 (W.D. Wash. 1979), as modified by the Court's

order of August 24, 1993. Subp. 05-3, Dkt No. 44, p. 2; Jannetta Dec. 19. In line with this

jurisdictional provision, Swinomish included Saratoga Passage because Suquamish was fishing

there. Id., pp. 4-5; JannettaDec. 21-22. SwinomishleftoutHolmesHarborbecause Suquamish was

not fishing there. Id.

The area in dispute in 05-3 was thus an amalgam of the two different but overlapping areas

pled by Upper Skagit and Swinomish. The Court treated the amalgam as one case area for purposes

of Subp. 05-3. The area was referred to colloquially as Skagit Bay and Saratoga Passage, and more

technically as Shellfish Management Catch and Reporting Areas 24A and 24C. Subp. 05-3, Dkt,

No.198 p.1, n. 1; J annetta Dec. 1. Hereafter, we will refer to the 05-3 claim area as Areas 24A and

24C. See map, p. 10, below.

Subp. 05-3 was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment based upon an examination

ofthe record before Judge Boldt at the time he made the Suquamish U&A determination in 1975.

Subp. 05-3 Dkt. No. 198; JannettaDec. 1-15. In Subp. 05-3 this Court ruled that Suquamish did not

have U&As in Areas 24A and 24C. The Court first decided that the term 'Puget Sound,' as used by


Page3 of9



TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309

Case 2:05-sp-00004-RSM Document 193 Filed 10/25/12 of 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Judge Boldt, was not ambiguous and included the waters east ofWhidbey Island. !d. p. 9; Jannetta

Dec. 9. However, the Court then proceeded to "look at the actual evidence that was before Judge

Boldt to determine if it 'suggests that Judge Boldt intended something other than the apparent

meaning."' !d., quotingMuckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir.

1998). The Court then framed the central factual issue in the case:

[T]he burden is on the Upper Skagit and the Swinomish to demonstrate that there was no evidence [in the record before Judge Boldt] that the Suquamish fished on the east side of Whidbey Island, or traveled through there on their way up to the San Juans or the Fraser River area.

!d. (emphasis added).

This Court then examined the record before Judge Boldt, which consisted almost entirely of

the report of Dr. Barbara Lane and her testimony at the hearing. !d. pp. 9-12; J annetta Dec. 9-12. A

major focus of the inquiry was a map that Dr. Lane used to describe the Suquamish travel route. Id.

This map, Subp. 05-3, Dkt. No. 145, p. 22; Jannetta Dec. 23, is attached to this motion, p. 11. The

description of the route extended through areas 1 and 2 on the map, which excluded the waters on the

east side of Whidbey Island. Subp. 05-3, Dkt. No. 198, p. 12; Jannetta Dec. 12. The Court

concluded from this and other aspects of the record before Judge Boldt that there was no evidence in

the record that Suquamish fished or traveled through the waters east ofWhidbey Island. !d., pp. 12,

15; J annetta Dec. 12, 15. The Court concluded based on that finding determined that Judge Boldt did

not intend to include Areas 24Aand 24C in Suquamish U&As. !d. p. 15; Jannetta Dec. 15.

Judgment for Upper Skagit and Swinomish was entered. Subp. 05-3, Dkt. No. 199; Jannetta Dec.

24.


Page4 of9



TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Washington, 590 F.3d

1020 (9th Cir. 2010). The appellate court affirmed that this Court had "faithfully followed the

Muckleshoot construct" in examine the record before Judge Boldt to ascertain whether he meant

something other than the apparent meaning of the U&A finding. Id. at 1024. The Ninth Circuit also

arrived at the same factual conclusion as this Court based on the examination of the record: ''There

is no evidence in the record that the Suquamish fished or traveled in the waters on the eastern side of

Whidbey Island." Id. at 1025 (emphasis added). In addressing Judge Boldt's intent, the appeals

court also emphasized that in his ruling from the bench on Suquamish U&As Judge Boldt clearly

excluded the waters east of Whidbey Island by referring to the travel route as areas 1 and 2 on the

map that Dr. Lane had used in her testimony. Id.; see attached map p. 11.

ARGUMENT

I. Claim Preclusion Bars Suquamish Claims to U&As in Penn Cove and Saratoga Passage.

The doctrine of claim preclusion, formerly known as res judicata, bars a claim in a

subsequent case if that same claim has reached final judgment in a previous action involving the

same parties (or their privies). In re International Nutronics, Inc., 28 F .3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 1994 ).

In Subp. 05-3 final judgment was entered that Suquamish has no U&As in Areas 24A and 24C.

Subp. 05-3, Dkt. No. 199; J annetta Dec. 24. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment. Suquamish,

Swinomish and Tulalip were all parties to Subp. 05-3 and Suquamish actively defended the claims

against it. Since Saratoga Passage and Penn Cove are both within Area 24C, see attached map, p. 10,

claim preclusion applies to them in this sub-proceeding.


of9



TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

II. Issue Preclusion Bars Suquamish U&As in Holmes Harbor.

It is a somewhat different story with Holmes Harbor. Holmes Harbor, an appendage of

Saratoga Passage, is part of the waters east ofWhidbey Island. However, Holmes Harbor is its own

separate Shellfish Management Catch and Reporting Area, Area 24D, and so was not a part of the

claims brought in Subp. 05-3. See map p. 10.

The operative preclusion doctrine that applies to Holmes Harbor in this case is issue

preclusion, formerly known as collateral estoppel. Issue preclusion focuses on the issues, as opposed

to the claims, litigated in a prior case. These issues may be factual or legal. 18 Moore's, op. cit.

§ 13 2. 01 [2]. For issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, to apply, "the issue involved must have been

litigated and decided in the first case." Kamilche Co. v. U.S., 53 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 1995).

The preclusive issues decided in Subp. 05-3 that apply to Holmes Harbor in this case are:

(1) The factual issue that there was no evidence in the record before Judge Boldt when he

made the Suquamish U &As determination that Suquamish fished or traveled through the waters east

ofWhidbey Island, Subp. 05-3, Dkt. No. 198, pp. 9, 12, 15; Jannetta Dec. 9. 12. 15; Upper Skagit,

590 F.3d at 1025;

(2) The factual issue that Judge Boldt intended to exclude the waters east of Whidbey

Island from Suquamish U&As by his reference to the map used in describing Suquamish U&As;

Upper Skagit, 590 F .3d at 1025; see map p. 11; and

(3) The conclusion based upon these facts that Judge Boldt did not intend to include the

waters east ofWhidbeyisland in Suquamish U&As. Subp. 05-3, Dkt. No. 198, pp. 14, 15, Jannetta

Dec. 14-15, Upp_er Skagit, 590 F.3d at 1025.


of9



TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

In Kamilche the Ninth Circuit identified four factors to consider in detennining whether issue

preclusion applies. 53 F .3d at 1062. All of the factors favor the application of issue preclusion in

this case.

(1) Is there a substantial overlap between the evidence advanced in the second proceeding

and that advanced in the first?

Here, the evidence- indeed, the universe of evidence- is exactly the same in the two cases.

The evidence of Judge Boldt's intent is limited to the record before Judge Boldt at the time the

U &As decision was made. Exactly the same evidence applies to Area 24D as to Areas 24A and 24C.

In addition, the finding that there is no evidence in the record before Judge Boldt that Suquamish

fished or traveled through Areas 24A and 24C of necessity applies to Area 24D as well. One cannot

enter Holmes Harbor without traveling through Saratoga Passage. Conversely, if there were any

evidence before Judge Boldt that Suquamish traveled in Holmes Harbor, it would have been equally

applicable to Subp. 05-3 because it would have constituted evidence that Suquamish traveled

through Saratoga Passage as well.

(2) Is the same rule oflaw involved in the prior proceeding?

Yes. The Muckleshoot line of cases applied to determine Judge Boldt's intent is as applicable

to U&As in Area 24A as it was in Subp. 05-3, and nothing in the law has changed in the two years

since the Ninth Circuit decided the appeal in 05-3.

(3) Could pretrial preparation and discovery in the first proceeding reasonably be

expected to have embraced the matter to be presented in the second?

The universe of relevant facts and documents is exactly the same in Sub_2. 05-3 as it is in this


of9



TEL 360/466-3163; FAX 360/466-5309


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

case. Moreover, any evidence that Suquamish fished or traveled in Holmes Harbor would have been

highly relevant to Subp. 05-3 because that evidence would show that Suquamish traveled through

Area24C.

(4) How closely related are the claims?

The claims are identical save for the fact that they involve different Areas adjacent to one

another in the waters east of Whidbey Island. The fact that Holmes Harbor is an appendage of

Saratoga Passage that cannot be reached except through Saratoga Passage makes for an even closer

relationship between the claims.

Since issue preclusion applies, Suquamish cannot now claim a right to relitigate the

dispositive issues decided in Subp. 05-3. Issue preclusion compels the Court to rule in this case that

Suquamish does not have U&As in Holmes Harbor, Area 24D. 1

CONCLUSION

The decision and the resolution of the factual and legal issues in Subp. 05-3 preclude

litigation in this sub-proceeding of whether Suquamish has U&As in Penn Cove, Saratoga Passage,

and Holmes Harbor. Judgment should be entered declaring that Suquamish does not have U&As in

those waters based upon the preclusive effect ofSubp. 05-3.

1 The result would be the same if the law of the case doctrine applied here. Under this doctrine, a court is generally precluded from revisiting an issue previously decided in the same case by that court or a higher court. US. v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 452 (9th Cir. 2000). In Lummi the Ninth Circuit applied the doctrine to a prior district court ruling in the same sub-proceeding (Subp. 89-2). I d. Swinomish believes that the law of the case doctrine does not apply here because the previous decision was the flnal decision in a different sub-proceeding. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, now the law of the circuit, only underscores this point..


of9



TEL 360/466-3163· FAX 360/466-5309


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Is/ James M. Jannetta, WSBA #36525 Office of Tribal Attorney Swinomish Indian Tribal Community 11404 Moorage Way LaConner W A 98257 Phone: 360-466-1021 Fax: 360-466-5309 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

I hereby certify that on October 25,2012, I electronically filed the Swinomish Response to

Tulalip Request for Determination with the Clerk of the Court using the CMIECF system which

will send notice of the filing to all parties registered in the CM/ECF system for this matter.


of9

By: Is/ James M. Jannetta James M. J annetta Counsel for Swinomish Indian Tribal Community



TEL 360/466-3163· FAX 360/466-5309


Attachment 1 to SITC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 10


Case 2:70-cv-09213-RSM Document 18648 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 40 of 42

Attachment 1 to SITC Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 11


us. washington · washington sub-proceeding 05-3. in swinomish motion for partial summary judgment...

Documents