tribe has waived immunity in California

2024(People v. Miami Nation Enterprises (2016) 2 Cal.5th 222, 235 .) 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 In Agua Caliente, our Supreme Court explained that, in Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , “the high court addressed the issue whether recognized Indian tribes enjoy immunity from suit on contracts, regardless of whether those contracts were made on or off a reservation or involved governmental or commercial activities” (Agua Caliente, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 250 ), and “held that as ‘a matter of federal law, an In

2021“As a matter of federal law, absent congressional authorization or an Indian tribe’s consent to suit, a federally recognized Indian tribe enjoys immunity from any suit in state court, even if the activity that is the subject of the lawsuit is purely commercial in nature or occurs on nontribal lands. [Citation.] That immunity extends to a tribe’s for-profit business entities when the entity is operating on behalf of the tribe.” (Ameriloan v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 81 , 84−85 (Ameriloan); see also Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751, 754

2020“Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.” (Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978) 436 U.S. 49, 58 .) “As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754.) Moreover, a waiver of sovereign immunity may not be implied; it must be unequivocally expressed by the tribe or Congress.

2016"Indian tribes are ' "domestic dependent nations" ' that exercise 'inherent sovereign authority.' " (Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) 572 U.S. ___ [ 188 L.Ed.2d 1071, 1082 , 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030 ].) "Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess . . . is the 'common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.' " ( 188 L.Ed.2d at p. 1083 .) Thus, "[a]s a matter of federal law, an 3 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 6 Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived i

2015Sovereign Immunity for Indian Tribes and Their Officials “The federal government has ‘plenary and exclusive power’ to deal with Indian tribes.” (Trudgeon v. Fantasy Springs Casino (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 632, 635 (Trudgeon).) “Under federal law, an Indian tribe is a sovereign authority and, as such, has tribal sovereign immunity, not only from liability, but also from suit. [Citations.] Pursuant to tribal sovereign immunity principles, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has so authorized or where the Tribe has waived its immunity by consenting to suit. [Citation.] Absent such

2015“Under federal law, an Indian tribe is a sovereign authority and, as such, has tribal sovereign immunity, not only from liability, but also from suit. [Citations.] Pursuant to tribal sovereign immunity principles, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has so authorized or where the Tribe has waived its immunity by consenting to suit. [Citation.] Absent such authorization or consent, the courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over suits against a tribe. [Citation.]” (Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1368 (Lawrence); see Warbur

2015(Turner v. Martire (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1046 (Turner); see Boisclair, at p. 1157; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 682, 695 (Larson).) On the other hand, when “an officer of a sovereign acts beyond his or her delegated authority, his or her actions ‘are considered individual and not sovereign actions.

2015(Turner v. Martire (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1046 (Turner); see Boisclair, at p. 1157; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 682, 695 (Larson).) On the other hand, when “an officer of a sovereign acts beyond his or her delegated authority, his or her actions ‘are considered individual and not sovereign actions.

2015Sovereign Immunity for Indian Tribes and Their Officials “The federal government has ‘plenary and exclusive power’ to deal with Indian tribes.” (Trudgeon v. Fantasy Springs Casino (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 632, 635 (Trudgeon).) “Under federal law, an Indian tribe is a sovereign authority and, as such, has tribal sovereign immunity, not only from liability, but also from suit. [Citations.] Pursuant to tribal sovereign immunity principles, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has so authorized or where the Tribe has waived its immunity by consenting to suit. [Citation.] Absent such

2015“Under federal law, an Indian tribe is a sovereign authority and, as such, has tribal sovereign immunity, not only from liability, but also from suit. [Citations.] Pursuant to tribal sovereign immunity principles, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has so authorized or where the Tribe has waived its immunity by consenting to suit. [Citation.] Absent such authorization or consent, the courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over suits against a tribe. [Citation.]” (Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1368 (Lawrence); see Warbur

2015(Turner v. Martire (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1046 (Turner); see Boisclair, at p. 1157; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 682, 695 (Larson).) On the other hand, when “an officer of a sovereign acts beyond his or her delegated authority, his or her actions ‘are considered individual and not sovereign actions.

2015(Turner v. Martire (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1046 (Turner); see Boisclair, at p. 1157; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949) 337 U.S. 682, 695 (Larson).) On the other hand, when “an officer of a sovereign acts beyond his or her delegated authority, his or her actions ‘are considered individual and not sovereign actions.

2015Sovereign Immunity for Indian Tribes and Their Officials “The federal government has ‘plenary and exclusive power’ to deal with Indian tribes.” (Trudgeon v. Fantasy Springs Casino (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 632, 635 (Trudgeon).) “Under federal law, an Indian tribe is a sovereign authority and, as such, has tribal sovereign immunity, not only from liability, but also from suit. [Citations.] Pursuant to tribal sovereign immunity principles, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has so authorized or where the Tribe has waived its immunity by consenting to suit. [Citation.] Absent such

2015“Under federal law, an Indian tribe is a sovereign authority and, as such, has tribal sovereign immunity, not only from liability, but also from suit. [Citations.] Pursuant to tribal sovereign immunity principles, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has so authorized or where the Tribe has waived its immunity by consenting to suit. [Citation.] Absent such authorization or consent, the courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over suits against a tribe. [Citation.]” (Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1368 (Lawrence); see Warbur

2014But ‘without congressional authorization,’ the ‘Indian Nations are exempt from suit.’”].) “[A]n Indian tribe is not subject to suit in a state court—even for breach of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct—unless ‘Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.’” (C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 414 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ]; accord, Kiowa, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 760 [tribal sovereign immunity applies without distinction between on- and off-reservation or governmental or commercial activitie

2014But ‘without congressional authorization,’ the ‘Indian Nations are exempt from suit.’”].) “[A]n Indian tribe is not subject to suit in a state court—even for breach of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct—unless ‘Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.’” (C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 414 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ]; accord, Kiowa, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 760 [tribal sovereign immunity applies without distinction between on- and off-reservation or governmental or commercial activitie

2016"Indian tribes are ' "domestic dependent nations" ' that exercise 'inherent sovereign authority.' " (Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) 572 U.S. ___ [ 188 L.Ed.2d 1071, 1082 , 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030 ].) "Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess . . . is the 'common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.' " ( 188 L.Ed.2d at p. 1083 .) Thus, "[a]s a matter of federal law, an 3 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 6 Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived i

2016"Indian tribes are ' "domestic dependent nations" ' that exercise 'inherent sovereign authority.' " (Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) 572 U.S. ___ [ 188 L.Ed.2d 1071, 1082 , 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030 ].) "Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess . . . is the 'common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.' " ( 188 L.Ed.2d at p. 1083 .) Thus, "[a]s a matter of federal law, an 3 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 6 Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived i

2021“As a matter of federal law, absent congressional authorization or an Indian tribe’s consent to suit, a federally recognized Indian tribe enjoys immunity from any suit in state court, even if the activity that is the subject of the lawsuit is purely commercial in nature or occurs on nontribal lands. [Citation.] That immunity extends to a tribe’s for-profit business entities when the entity is operating on behalf of the tribe.” (Ameriloan v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 81 , 84−85 (Ameriloan); see also Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751, 754

2001An aboriginal American tribe is a sovereign nation and “As a matter of federal law, ... is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 754 [118 S.Ct. at p. 1702]; see Great Western Casinos, Inc. v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1419-1420 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 ] (Morongo Band).) Plaintiff does not point to any federal law which grants California jurisdiction over alleged off-reservation Indian torts.

2006(Ibid.) Kiowa Tribe held that as “a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 754 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Potawatomi Tribe (1991) 498 U.S. 505, 509 [ 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 , 111 S.Ct. 905 ] (Potawatomi Tribe) [sovereign immunity protects Indian tribes from suit to collect taxes from cigarette sales on Indian land absent clear waiver or congressional abrogation]; Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, supra, 436 U.S. at p. 49, 58 [tribal immunity from suit subject

2006(Ibid.) Kiowa Tribe held that as “a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 754 ; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Potawatomi Tribe (1991) 498 U.S. 505, 509 [ 112 L.Ed.2d 1112 , 111 S.Ct. 905 ] (Potawatomi Tribe) [sovereign immunity protects Indian tribes from suit to collect taxes from cigarette sales on Indian land absent clear waiver or congressional abrogation]; Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, supra, 436 U.S. at p. 49, 58 [tribal immunity from suit subject

2016"Indian tribes are ' "domestic dependent nations" ' that exercise 'inherent sovereign authority.' " (Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) 572 U.S. ___ [ 188 L.Ed.2d 1071, 1082 , 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030 ].) "Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess . . . is the 'common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.' " ( 188 L.Ed.2d at p. 1083 .) Thus, "[a]s a matter of federal law, an 3 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 6 Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived i

2002“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 ], italics added; accord, C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 418 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ] [holding that tribe contractually waived sovereign immunity and subjected itself to state court jurisdiction].) “Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Cong

2008(Kiowa, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 754 [“[a]s a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity”]; Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1368 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 23 ] [state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in action involving federally recognized Indian tribe].) Because tribal sovereign immunity is a matter of federal law, it “is not subject to diminution by the States.” (Kiowa, at p. 756; see also Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) 426 U.S. 373, 376, fn. 2 [ 48 L.Ed.2d

2008(Kiowa, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 754 [“[a]s a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity”]; Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1368 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 23 ] [state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in action involving federally recognized Indian tribe].) Because tribal sovereign immunity is a matter of federal law, it “is not subject to diminution by the States.” (Kiowa, at p. 756; see also Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) 426 U.S. 373, 376, fn. 2 [ 48 L.Ed.2d

2020(C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411 , 414–420; Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1193 .) “In the absence of conflicting extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue, the question of whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action against an Indian tribe is a question of law subject to our de novo review.” (Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1369 .) Here, Rosas first raises a novel issue of law: When assessing whether a defendant is entitled to tri

2015(Id. at p. 760.)” (Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1191 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 357 ]; see Bay Mills, supra, 572 U.S. at p._ [ 134 S.Ct. at p. 2028 ].) In enacting the Act, Congress provided only a narrow waiver of tribal sovereign immunity to allow a state to bring a federal court action solely to enjoin gaming activity on tribal land being conducted in violation of a tribal compact. ( 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(7)(A)(ii); see Bay Mills, at p._, fn. 6 [134 S.Ct. at pp. 2030-2032, 2034, fn. 6.) *761 If San Pasqual’s construction of section 9.4 were credited, a

2015Co. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 508, 510 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 634 , 370 P.2d 338 ].) But, San Pasqual does. “ ‘As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity. [Citations.]’ (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 140 L.Ed.2d 981 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 ].) This immunity extends to a tribe’s commercial activities.

2015Co. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 508, 510 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 634 , 370 P.2d 338 ].) But, San Pasqual does. “ ‘As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity. [Citations.]’ (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 140 L.Ed.2d 981 , 118 S.Ct. 1700 ].) This immunity extends to a tribe’s commercial activities.

2002“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 ], italics added; accord, C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 418 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ] [holding that tribe contractually waived sovereign immunity and subjected itself to state court jurisdiction].) “Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Cong

1999Appeals Bd. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1347 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 105 ].) And since it emanates from federal law, tribal immunity “is not subject to diminution by the States.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla., supra, 523 U.S. at p. 756 [ 118 S.Ct. at p. 1703 ].) Plaintiff does not dispute that the Tribe itself enjoys sovereign immunity.

2021“As a matter of federal law, absent congressional authorization or an Indian tribe’s consent to suit, a federally recognized Indian tribe enjoys immunity from any suit in state court, even if the activity that is the subject of the lawsuit is purely commercial in nature or occurs on nontribal lands. [Citation.] That immunity extends to a tribe’s for-profit business entities when the entity is operating on behalf of the tribe.” (Ameriloan v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 81 , 84−85 (Ameriloan); see also Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751, 754

2021(See Kiowa Tribe, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 754 [“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.”]; Ameriloan, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 97 [finding tribal immunity extends to certain for-profit commercial entities that function as “ ‘arms of the tribes,’ ” including casino operators].) But as noted, California state courts likely would not have jurisdiction over claims asserted against a tribe, or an entity acting as an “arm of the tribe,” particularly in the context of tribal gaming, due to both

2016"Indian tribes are ' "domestic dependent nations" ' that exercise 'inherent sovereign authority.' " (Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014) 572 U.S. ___ [ 188 L.Ed.2d 1071, 1082 , 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030 ].) "Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess . . . is the 'common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.' " ( 188 L.Ed.2d at p. 1083 .) Thus, "[a]s a matter of federal law, an 3 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 6 Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived i

2015Sovereign Immunity for Indian Tribes and Their Officials “The federal government has ‘plenary and exclusive power’ to deal with Indian tribes.” (Trudgeon v. Fantasy Springs Casino (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 632, 635 (Trudgeon).) “Under federal law, an Indian tribe is a sovereign authority and, as such, has tribal sovereign immunity, not only from liability, but also from suit. [Citations.] Pursuant to tribal sovereign immunity principles, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has so authorized or where the Tribe has waived its immunity by consenting to suit. [Citation.] Absent such

2014But ‘without congressional authorization,’ the ‘Indian Nations are exempt from suit.’”].) “[A]n Indian tribe is not subject to suit in a state court—even for breach of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct—unless ‘Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.’” (C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 414 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ]; accord, Kiowa, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 760 [tribal sovereign immunity applies without distinction between on- and off-reservation or governmental or commercial activitie

2014But ‘without congressional authorization,’ the ‘Indian Nations are exempt from suit.’”].) “[A]n Indian tribe is not subject to suit in a state court—even for breach of contract involving off-reservation commercial conduct—unless ‘Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.’” (C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 414 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ]; accord, Kiowa, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 760 [tribal sovereign immunity applies without distinction between on- and off-reservation or governmental or commercial activitie

2014Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle (1977) 429 U.S. 274, 280 [ 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 ]), tribal sovereign immunity protects not only a tribe itself but also subordinate governmental or commercial entities acting as arms of the tribe.

2014Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle (1977) 429 U.S. 274, 280 [ 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 ]), tribal sovereign immunity protects not only a tribe itself but also subordinate governmental or commercial entities acting as arms of the tribe.

2002Dept. of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 509, 519 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 698 P.2d 150 ].) Indeed, the Tribe waived sovereign immunity previously when it made a general appearance in this case.

2002Dept. of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 509, 519 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 247 , 698 P.2d 150 ].) Indeed, the Tribe waived sovereign immunity previously when it made a general appearance in this case.

2002“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 ], italics added; accord, C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 418 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ] [holding that tribe contractually waived sovereign immunity and subjected itself to state court jurisdiction].) “Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Cong

2002“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 ], italics added; accord, C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 418 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ] [holding that tribe contractually waived sovereign immunity and subjected itself to state court jurisdiction].) “Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Cong

2002“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 ], italics added; accord, C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 418 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ] [holding that tribe contractually waived sovereign immunity and subjected itself to state court jurisdiction].) “Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Cong

2002“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.” (Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 751 , 754 [ 118 S.Ct. 1700 , 1702, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 ], italics added; accord, C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla. (2001) 532 U.S. 411, 418 [ 121 S.Ct. 1589, 1594 , 149 L.Ed.2d 623 ] [holding that tribe contractually waived sovereign immunity and subjected itself to state court jurisdiction].) “Indian tribes may consent to suit without explicit Cong