Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma et al v. Edmondson et al, No. 4:2006cv00394 - Document 65 (N.D. Okla. 2007)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion to Vacate Order/Judgment (GKF2, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma et al v. Edmondson et al65 Case 4:06-cv-00394-GKF-SAJ Document Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/06/2007 Page 1 of 3 Doc. 65 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA and SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBAL TOBACCO CORPORATION, a tribal corporation, f/d/b/a SENECA-CAYUGA TOBACCO COMPANY, an unincorporated enterprise of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, Plaintiffs, vs. DREW EDMONDSON, as Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and BANK OF OKLAHOMA, N.A., as escrow agent, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 06-CV-394-GKF-SAJ OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is the Motion to Vacate or Amend Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Standing [Dkt. #50] of plaintiff Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma (the Tribe ), plaintiff Seneca-Cayuga Tribal Tobacco Corporation ( SCTTC ), and the Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company ( SCTC ). Plaintiffs move to vacate or amend the court s Opinion and Order [Dkt. #49] (the Order ) of November 29, 2006, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). SCTC, formerly an unincorporated tribal enterprise, ceased to exist in June of 2006 when the Tribe incorporated SCTTC under tribal law and transferred SCTC s assets and liabilities to the new corporation. SCTC is not and never has been a party to this lawsuit. Therefore, SCTC is not properly a movant on the motion to vacate or amend. Whether a motion is construed as a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion depends upon the time in which the motion is filed. Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006). If a motion is served within ten days of the rendition of judgment, the motion ordinarily Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:06-cv-00394-GKF-SAJ Document 65 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/06/2007 Page 2 of 3 will fall under Rule 59(e). If the motion is served after that time it falls under Rule 60(b). Id. (quoting Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)). The instant motion was filed on December 12, 2006, nine (9) business days after the judgment. The court will consider plaintiffs motion as one brought under Rule 59(e). Plaintiffs set forth two propositions in their Motion to Vacate or Amend: (1) events occurring after submission of the Motion to Dismiss demonstrate imminent harm to SCTTC and thus establish standing; and (2) the Order did not address plaintiffs standing to seek recovery of monies placed in escrow pursuant to Oklahoma s Escrow Statutes, OKLA. STAT. tit. 37, §§ 600.21-600.23. Standing is determined as of the time the action is brought. Nova Health Systems v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2005). Events occurring after submission of the Motion to Dismiss are irrelevant to the issue of standing. In the First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek disgorgement and release to Plaintiffs from the Escrow Account at the Bank of Oklahoma [of] the full amount of the deposits made by Plaintiffs for sales of tobacco products in Oklahoma. [Dkt. #29, p.11]. The Tribe alleges it has made more than $4.5 million in escrow payments, under protest, into the escrow account for Oklahoma tobacco sales. [Dkt. #29, ¶ 33, p. 8]. Contrary to the State s argument raised in the response to the Motion to Vacate or Amend, the issue of plaintiffs standing to seek disgorgement was raised in briefing on the Motion to Dismiss. See Plaintiffs Supplemental Response in Opposition to Defendant s Motion to Dismiss. [Dkt. #36-1, pp. 6, 12]. The court concludes that the Order does not address the Tribe s standing as to the claim for disgorgement of escrow funds under the theory of sovereign immunity, that the Tribe has standing to seek disgorgement of funds allegedly paid into the escrow account, and that the previous order must be amended to that extent. 2 Case 4:06-cv-00394-GKF-SAJ Document 65 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 09/06/2007 Page 3 of 3 Plaintiff SCTTC is a tribal corporation incorporated on June 10, 2006. As stated in the Order, SCTTC has a legal existence separate and distinct from the Tribe. [Dkt. #49, p. 11] (citing 2 FLETCHER CYC. CORPORATIONS § 25). SCTTC does not have standing to seek disgorgement of escrow payments allegedly made by the Tribe. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate or Amend Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Standing [Dkt. #50] is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted as to plaintiff Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma s standing on its claim for disgorgement of escrow funds under the theory of sovereign immunity. The Clerk is hereby directed to reopen the case as to the claim of plaintiff Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma. The Motion to Vacate or Amend is otherwise denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of September 2007. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
