claim of sovereign immunity in California

2011(Ute Distribution Corp. v. Ute Indian Tribe (10th Cir. 1998) 149 F.3d 1260, 1267 .) Great Western Casinos, Inc. v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1418 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 828 ] (Great Western Casinos), acknowledges the California approach to this specific type of jurisdictional problem allows a trial court deciding upon a claim of sovereign immunity to “ ‘engage in sufficient pretrial factual and legal determinations to “ ‘satisfy itself of its authority to hear the case’ before trial.” ’ ” (Ibid.; see Smith, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th 1, 7, fn. 8 .) The reason for this ru

2002Cir. 1997) 115 F.3d 1020, 1027-1028 ; Smith v. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1, 7, fn. 8 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 455 ] (Smith).) The reason for this rule is that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and no specific procedural method is required to bring the matter to the court’s attention.

2023Specifically, Corrales points out that the trial court’s minute order cited Great Western Casinos, Inc. v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Great Western) for the proposition that “when faced with a claim of sovereign immunity, the court may look beyond the pleadings if needed and engage in a factual inquiry to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute.” (Italics added.) According to Corrales, the trial court erred because the issue presented was not the Tribe’s sovereign immunity but rather whether the trial court lacked subject matter juri

2023Specifically, Corrales points out that the trial court’s minute order cited Great Western Casinos, Inc. v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Great Western) for the proposition that “when faced with a claim of sovereign immunity, the court may look beyond the pleadings if needed and engage in a factual inquiry to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute.” (Italics added.) According to Corrales, the trial court erred because the issue presented was not the Tribe’s sovereign immunity but rather whether the trial court lacked subject matter juri

2002Cir. 1997) 115 F.3d 1020, 1027-1028 [where the motion to dismiss is based upon a claim of sovereign immunity, which provides protection from suit, and not merely a defense to liability, the court may depart from the general rule that on a motion to dismiss the court accepts the pleadings as true, and draws all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, and instead must engage in sufficient pretrial factual and legal inquiry to determine whether it has the authority to hear the case]; E.F.W. v. St.

2002Cir. 1997) 115 F.3d 1020, 1027-1028 ; Smith v. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1, 7, fn. 8 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 455 ] (Smith).) The reason for this rule is that the lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and no specific procedural method is required to bring the matter to the court’s attention.

2008(See also Allen v. Gold Country Casino (9th Cir. 2006) 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 [the relevant question for purposes of applying tribal sovereign immunity “is not whether the activity may be characterized as a business, which is irrelevant under Kiowa, but whether the entity acts as an arm of the tribe so that its activities are properly deemed to be those of the tribe”].) 10 The Department urges, if further proceedings on this issue occur in the trial court, it should have an opportunity to conduct discovery into the payday loan companies’ assertions that the profits from the payday loan companies’

2002California law permits a plaintiff seeking to assert claims against a corporation to obtain discovery against it about whether it has been doing business in this state, since such facts are normally within the knowledge of the corporate officers and such jurisdictional issues are subject to discovery. (1880 Corp. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 840, 843 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 209 , 371 P.2d 985 ].) Further, the California courts have adopted the federal procedural approach to this specific type of jurisdictional problem, involving discovery, by allowing a trial court faced with a claim of sovereign

2002California law permits a plaintiff seeking to assert claims against a corporation to obtain discovery against it about whether it has been doing business in this state, since such facts are normally within the knowledge of the corporate officers and such jurisdictional issues are subject to discovery. (1880 Corp. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 840, 843 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 209 , 371 P.2d 985 ].) Further, the California courts have adopted the federal procedural approach to this specific type of jurisdictional problem, involving discovery, by allowing a trial court faced with a claim of sovereign

1999(See Fidelity Bank v. Kettler (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 481, 485-486 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 500 ] [if a party appears to object to consideration of any aspect of the case on the ground the court lacks jurisdiction, the appearance is special].) To waive a claim of sovereign immunity and consent to suit requires something more—for example, request for relief on the merits rather than just a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction.

1999(See Fidelity Bank v. Kettler (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 481, 485-486 [ 70 Cal.Rptr. 500 ] [if a party appears to object to consideration of any aspect of the case on the ground the court lacks jurisdiction, the appearance is special].) To waive a claim of sovereign immunity and consent to suit requires something more—for example, request for relief on the merits rather than just a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction.