Summary
In Luckerman, an attorney sent a letter of engagement to a tribe's chief that included a term arguably waiving of sovereign immunity and concluded with a request for the recipient to notify the attorney if they did not understand or agree with its terms.
Summary of this case from Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. FergusonOpinion
C.A. No. 13–185 S.
2014-01-7
Douglas J. LUCKERMAN, Plaintiff, v. NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE, Defendant.
Anthony F. Muri, Muri Associates LLC, Providence, RI, Albert L. Farrah, Jr., Farrah and Farrah, Andover, MA, for Plaintiff. John F. Killoy, Jr., Law Office of John F. Killoy, Jr., LLC, Narragansett, RI, for Defendant.
Anthony F. Muri, Muri Associates LLC, Providence, RI, Albert L. Farrah, Jr., Farrah and Farrah, Andover, MA, for Plaintiff. John F. Killoy, Jr., Law Office of John F. Killoy, Jr., LLC, Narragansett, RI, for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
Plaintiff Douglas Luckerman, an attorney who formerly represented Defendant Narragansett Indian Tribe (“Tribe”), brought suit against the Tribe in state court for breach of contract, alleging that the Tribe failed to fully compensate him for his services. The Tribe removed the case to federal court and filed the instant motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the case falls within the jurisdiction of its tribal court. (ECF No. 8.) Luckerman filed an opposition to the Tribe's motion (ECF No. 10), as well as his own motion to remand the matter to state court (ECF No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED, and the case shall be stayed pending adjudication in the tribal court.
I. Facts
Luckerman, a Massachusetts attorney and non-member of the Tribe, began representing the Tribe in 2002. In March 2003, Luckerman prepared and directed to the Tribe's Chief Sachem Matthew Thomas, a letter memorializing the terms of the engagement (“2003 agreement”). The 2003 agreement provides, in pertinent part: “The Tribe agrees to waive any defense of sovereign immunity solely for claims or actions arising from this Agreement that are brought in state or federal courts.” (Ex. to Stipulation 8, ECF No. 4–1.) While the agreement is not signed by any representative of the Tribe, the complaint alleges that the Tribe accepted its terms. A note at the