Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 1 of 8

D'HCE WITEO STATES eOt1 .;0., . CUl~

llO. 102-a3
(F l1ed May 24 ø 1914)

..
J&Ssii SOOWl lêt al. fi

~ldntiff¡¡
v.
'1 trI'ED STATES

l:fcndi:nt
HOOPA VALtE nIBI; et al..
In t(li".aoi:

~~oum~ OF
SELD MAY

1914

~re3ent tor plaintiff$;

ltrold ,C.. Faulkne:c" .Esa..

and William C.. WUosicl, Esq. For dllf'endantl liarherl:

Pittle. Esq., Department of Justie~. aC'c~nied by,.

r~.~.

.,.
Durd R. Barnos, Esq.., .iUuiiiatant Solicitor. Indian.,

DiVision. Departmnt of Interior. and William Wirtz,

E~., Office of' the solicitor, Deartmnt ~f intorior~
sacramento, california.. For intervenor: Jerl: c..
straus, E~., Angelos .1. iadorola,

,

and Aliu R..

RUbinstein, Esq., attorney. for int.ervE)!l0r, The HOOpa .

valley Trib, accompanied by weøi.y L. Barker, i;sqOf
, ~".,..

COtis.l for The HOOpa valley Tribe,

california.

EXHIBIT 44

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 2 of 8

"!I 0.. CL.IMI5

1. 'lie cofereee 18 eo".ned at. the oall of

t: trial j-dt¡.. md.le eoel HWI I/gr~ to atuM.
ti.ir piu:t.cipat.oii b Gubj4lt. to a r;Ut,i.on for r...

heaing of the danial of tho petition for certlbrarL,
ft in proa...
. :2.. counsel haw i-t and are warld.ii on a foi: of.

questionnire to be filled out by each plaintiff, to dotoæino elii¡ibiUty to share in d.1litr!.Uons of procee4!
'Of rttservatioa t.i~ $810$1.. 'rho

wolid be

etged under ¡mmiltiElli of ¡mrjur but ftøt bEfor1! Ii not.ary.

COW1fll will exchngai drafts within i 'l(~.iui, an coemb.

on each otheresl draft$ one W' b.t.er~ 'fe questionnaire

will cotain questions pro~ by all the parties"
,.. Defenant and inteenor miy oither conce~c the

adiuibiHty of thl anwM'S D'.f aqrelid.n9 that. the plaintiff if called 'lould 80 testify. or~ it convinc~ of.

the untrth or lU!9nity of any lIeu, deill tlt tho.:
plaintiff appr to bll crOlò$-eamined" nofendant an
1ntervanr also rJ~rve the right, even if admission of
.1;e an$wers in avidenco is aciriied to" to introduc eon'"

uax or 8upl_nt: øviconce an to di-A'd factual or.
locl conclu.;taf~/ fro th qusationnirei 4Ullore.

The trial judi¡o will ext. that if defendAnt or

intervenor cat agree, on the baais ot a oolete!

questionnire, to the eligibUity of the plaintiff.
they will voice their doubts an objoctlons to coulUol

for plaintiff. an mae every effort to rosolva the

-2..

Case '''''~ 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 3 of 8

~~r' ' :

iT 01 CL.Ii.15

problem wit:ut a fortl hoarlni¡. or. at "c ~ ", lOfat, to agree
on a part of tho matters in issuo an limit thoir 4iaagroa-

~t to a preciao i.Quo, fr~d for a hearin.
::. . '"" J '-, _' . .' .'. ~ ' : ~ (

. , . ,-- . ~

I,:

\: '.' !' r: ~ . . .~' ¿.
!'~

4. Intervenor advisGd that it had .Ul9~8ted an

expa~it~ briefing of tho i.sues raised by the four
, ?

, '.. . '" ~',

cases ordtirQd to be roarguodr Plaintiff's wll1h, however.

. ,
( '~ .' _ , ~ : .'.i.

to proeoej first with discovery.

5. on the flubjoct. of discovery. defendant and lntor-

vonor recognize theLr obligation to maK$ full voluntary

, '.
'. ,
.;; ,.. \ ~~ .~;

present their reque~t8 ín
writing, clearly specifying what th~y wish.
"', '

'i"; 5. The trial judgo 'pointed out to counsel for ~~a

dafend,'ot Lliat thG plaintiff Yuoks. having been held to
be in1ians of the ono reservation, are now entitled from
," . '. '-,., ..,... . ,,' . "... '" .... the Goverru,e'it to more than it mi.ght O',-'e to an ordln.iry

E" ",

litigation advorsary. DGfendant' s pqs i tion has changed

fr~ that of a defolllant in an entirely adversary rolat ;on
'. : ~~.

to plaintiffs to ~iat of a etake-holdßr or trustee _ho
"" )

should rtt~in nautral as be~'aQn ~l~incitfs and. the

muers of tho intorvonór tr~G anJ U~èK to be hQlpful
to both of thom. f)ot:enanttu position may thus bG com-

parod to that Of a trustøe of an intervivos trust, onca

a new qroup of perzona has ~n hQl~ as a qroup. subject
to prof of 1ndtvi1ual gcnooloqy, oçual1y entitle..' wi.th
t."'OSO formerly rect'Ü-.riiog incOl, to bo bcnofic.larial5.

Moro Gp.cificl'11y, the ph intiffn ai: in:,Hviclualn_
Yuroks of tho roservation haviill Poem hel,:! to b$ Indian9

-3-

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 4 of 8

..~

"
'L\)

~ ,olCLAIMS
.r

of the ~U'tioa-ue ~ by th uca~ a diity of.
aasbtanC! 1a øt.l1l1húi theu lriividul e1diu..

ThLa duty 1t no li1'., but. no ilil!S thu tht. ~ to en
1Qdividiil Inia cmagll in prvin 'bb bl.d1vidwal

øt.1tlenmnt to a shi' 1i' a diltrlbutloß-et:er under
a sutute or a jl1~nt.-forthe benefit. of the

individual

~rs of! a trib or ll$Op.. of ~ diifiiant~. failurii in t:ii past iu thii
to
the

cf~&icf~

and.

iM4ied.. t: dcial of thse. lt~ta,' diifm'ant ~. the
1nividua plaintiffe & special dut.y to liubt.t.ll in ra-

coverin ft. ~iU.oudy lu'I/poliBible their full rights.
retrspetively.. terfonic: o~ thie duty umy in IK

circubincefi caUtor affirmt.ive .ction by tho nnit.oi
Sbates thOU the oepiu:tment of int.erior and the Bureau

of india Affaire. ; FOr inst:ee, d(if£Jndiit Is1'OUI. in t:e

porfomance of thb duty symt:Gtica:Uy øru,ilder rGq6ßU

for datt \Joøe coUect,ion an COilat.Of will reqire
soa offort or expense or bot:, in elrCltancs "Ie if

an adveroa r:de the s:cquost it \ild not. be unfair to
produco papers a.~ put the buren of comilation on the

party mainc th reest..
'. .,.. nefenant atatec that: it bas conI! idcnod propodnq

tht the ldentifieatlou of .li~ .~l. pl.lntlffa be acca

plbh... ~ the exnt poSll.le, by th$ t)partit of
int:ior. .a b done 1ft ca.es of det.nunlni¡ wht individuals
..boule aha in a judqit. tOlt . trib.. 90th 1ntervenor and

pla1nt1tfa are øp....

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW
"'1." v
. ~:i;'

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 5 of 8

¡r Of CLAIMI5

ñ. t,d4\l j~4l ratd é't. &afMdiiuit: hu a

duty,

if it think. any pulCl1. C~ 1. in t. biat inteest"
of lu wal'll ~ ..111 taV'OG the Illy an jWl~ cUspait.on

of the ClO. to pi.. ii: aM auppo i.t.. Defenant
lI viah to reeJ.u lbl podUon on thil1 subject,

in th l1i¡t of t. viMt uprell-d abVG an otei vi..

ilroø-d a~ tJ conferen, uo ~ th COents of
A$Ulista~ solicitor Duul! U to th cUfficulUes of an
assumt.ion by tho I)p:u:~t of the :mterlor of respon-

. "ibiUUIu for ~vili1n proof of eH.iibUity.. It
should abo bl r~ t:t dof~t Mil II to
cofO$lI jud~t. ~ti it b jU$t. to do so, an the

quøt.on ia Nally one of alternt.lvs lIethos of deVGlo

111 tho facta calin for cofessioM of juã~t in
in1J..vidual casu"

8.. The trial ,oog-8 inired whotluir thti partill could
not Agrac, before diau.tt.lng tho quoat.ionriire, on rules

of eligibility.. .Interor ~llp(.)1idll ~t. thu b thCl

, quostion on 'licl thoìf prosed ~.ued briefing, an
that their research has not. yet ooem coleted. plaintir!.

UG opped to llljrCNt.nt on rule. at thia t.ii. Th trial judge apprltlates that plaint:1fflS.
co\.el may not. find it easy to aqreo to rule.. wich may

disqlify ao of thoix cUtmt.. The lI11.igq_stlon ao to
agree.int. ri. on eili.ilbiUty rules is novort.olQB8

i:enewed, an dlrGctG pri.ily to defendant., which as
trust" £01' all 1. obliqat. in eqity to ISINk out thOIlO
who are entitledg and ahould be in the forefront of the

-5-

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW
(0-;/0

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 6 of 8

~' 'V"
'0

) OF eulM5 .. ïr

effort. to arrive at aM to priia, either tor adoptio

by the trial jwqe or, at. lqst. for dbcußiid"ol. .i Q:nt. by
the patiN, a set. of principles for determininc ciliiiibll1t.y,

a180 th afforta devoted to the quest.ionnaire will be vasta
to an ext.éat now avoidable.

.9. Ii queetion was rabed aa to any duty on the pat" of
plaintiffs' counsel to solicit evidence of possible ontitlen~nt
of othan t.'lan the nallGi plaintiffs. Tho trial judgo rules

that. tliiUC is no 8Uc:ìi duty. This.ls zan action by SOl
in.. tfs. party t.iffs may recover a jud~t. Questionnaires are to be dis000 Indi~ns who are tha name~
tx ibuted only to plaintlf¡~. 0
10.. plaintHilS i cons.l ¡;hould consult. wit.'l the clark

a$ to motion. to $ubstitu~ SUcc&sßQra to plaintiffs who

have died, and like ~tt~ll..couneel for intervenor and

the Gover¡mient aro ex~ct.lld not to oppoao !Such motlonii..
,11. Qu~Ltion~ ~oro r~i~~j by plaintift~' counaal ae to

tho plac~, in the litigation on thæ entitlamt of paticular
yurek plaintiffs, of l&suoa ae to the propriety of the

ent.it.lement to receive diiit,rLb\.tion.t of. p.-ut.lc:ular llOOp.G
who have bc~n r~coiving distributions. such issu&s might

ftr ilUlI in two way., 9-"ll\ ...ould bo a (Hrt;ct challengo to
th'3 proprioty or a distribution to a pZlrticular Hoopa.

1.noth$r fiigh:: bo an 1l.r'iilant. that a p.li:Ucular plaini:lf!
having a c~rtaia ralùtionshi9 to tho ru~cr~ation or th~
~rok Tr.l~ £houlJ b,:) h;iW to b~ Qntltlc.;. beçaU:.C a HOOpa

has ben held ent.itlod to racoh"o (Hetribution. on th~ baSiis

of a c~?~rable rQ13tion~hip by him to the resorvation or

to his tribo.

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 7 of 8

o/.i

-;
..v,. . L

Yo bF CLAIMS

Th~ t.ial ju190 notos ~at ~ig is an action by

indivUU3li- for.. money jud'jment. '!o ju.:i¡ent will'
prcs~~ly bo .. c~llation of aocisiona tht .. paticular platntiff who is h~ld to bo an indian of the

re8e~~tion is entttl~d to a certain fraction of tho
total available for distribution.
It is ::pp:ircntlY rølevimt. as evidence 0.'1 tho iszuo

of a plaintiffls ant-itlemnt to a share. that a goopa
di~tribution$ on ~~e DaGis sinl1ar to ona that

A j udg:el1. t
..plaintiff proposes as juztifyin his
that a p~rticulnr Roopa Who haa in the past received dis-

tribut tons ~~a 11 hcncoiorth not iracei va L~cr. however. does

not sec: to b~ vit.iiin the pleadings, or. irieGd, ",it.iiin
the juri~diction or tho co~rt.

1\t th~ confei:~nc;J,' Ll-are .."as a diacu¡¡sion of. pos:.ilÜo"
circur.stanc0s in ~hich Lhe fractional or mon~tary 9h~ro

of tho ~ovoral st.~C(:C";flrut i?laì.ntitt3 mi.ght bo great.er tna.'"
othonii::c, if it. \"",.re ma,1o to nj)poar that HOQP2le wera re-

calving dtstributionti on a basin rojectod by the court as a

c;roua' for ,,~t.ithc;ient. of a plaintifr or platntif'fß. cornt:ø
by the trial ju¿gø on this ~~joct were tenta~ive# and not
intonjc~ to ~6ctdQ any i¿cuos. ihe quostion is opon for
deciLion on mvtio~ or ls6uO ~ppropri&taly raiß~l by any

party. Tha only issue ~~c~i~toly prc~entod is one of

dlccov~-i. ~1.C trl.nl ju1g~ rul~~ t1iat plaintiffs are ontitlo:! to volunt..'i.ry dl::c.ç,.¡,¡r::' ;;d.::cY1 at s'!o"...inq vhat rules or
oligibility Brc npplled in roking diutrDoutions to HOOpAs.

Case 1:08-cv-00072-TCW
""°'0 /
,if OF CLAIMS

Document 22-2

Filed 08/08/2008

Page 8 of 8

12. A QUostion WAS raisGd aå t.o dborliity of intereßt

anj poac!bla conflicting position$ ~~g Plaintiffs. This
is in the first instace a auestionfor plaintiffa. COunsel.

No question for decùion h no present.ed.
13.. A question was raised by plaintiffs 88 to diøtributioM to the lloopaa or the HOOpa Tribe, from the funds

in quostion, of l'neys "lich are used t~ doii; the case..
NO issue on such question fa presented for docision..

16. 'le tr41 jUdge .tnqir~ u to t.'iG status of
pa:"'mGnta and was

COun.zelfor tho

paymente: to HOOpa8 have eontinua. until recent.ly ø and no

t: t

"'HI be euspendade except for paynaints to t.'ie 'tribe.. 'Iha
trial jUdgo cilut!oned, generally and without; intending to

approve or disapprove any particular course of action, that

any OVQrpymentn couid load to double or individual liability,
once Judgment. fa rendered.

15. Counsel Will please report status and progress of

QUestionnire co::lQUon tw months from tho datei of this
llorandum and thorO-aft-ar bimnthly whonQver no report
of ispaicific action has been i:,je for the two proce:ling

months. Councol for dofnI\ant 18 asked to take) the load in ak'kir.g sucb r~ports, anj ehould Use them as a vohtcle
for roporting on tho perforrmncG of its dutioa to all tho
plaintirru and to the member~ of thQ L~tQrvonor Tribo,

abov~ontione1. Counsel f'or other parti3s ahould add
any sUP,?loment;:xy COent they may havda.

~

Tr i; 1 JU Jgo

-8..