Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. N.Y.

278 F.Supp.2d 313

THE CANADIAN ST. REGIS BAND OF MOHAWK INDIANS by Lawrence Francis, Chief, and Lloyd Benedict, Mike Mitchell, Bruce Roundpoint, Joe Jacobs, John Oakes, Angus Bonaparte, Jr., David Benedict, Joyce Sharow, Robert Sunday, William Sunday and John Lazore, Council Members, Plaintiffs, and St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council, the People of the Longhouse at Akwaesasne by the Mohawk Nation, Consolidated Plaintiffs The United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor. v. The State of NEW YORK, George E. Pataki, as Governor of the State of New York, the County of St. Lawrence, New York, the County of Franklin, New York, the Village of Massena, New York, the Town of Massena, New York, the Town of Bombay, New York, the Town and Village of Fort Covington, New York, Farmers National Bank, n/k/a Key

Bank of Northern New York, N.A., Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Marine Midland Properties Corp., Walsh Realty Corp., and Canadian National Rail Ways, Defendants, The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council and the People of the Longhouse at Akwesasne, by The Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, Plaintiffs, The United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. v. The State of New York, George E. Pataki, as Governor; County of St. Lawrence; County of Franklin; Village of Massena; Town of Massena; Town of Bombay; Town and Village of Fort Covington; Key Bank of Northern New York, N.A.; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; Niagara Mohawk Power Co.; Canadian National Railways; Power Authority of the State of New York; William J. Brockway; Loretta Brockway; James Chapman; Mary Chapman; Robert Chapman; Burton Chapman; Paul Compeau; Catherine Compeau; Real C. Coupal; Thelma B. Coupal; Harry Grow; Laurent Hebert; Vincent Jerry; Daniel Jerry; Ernest L. Jock; Carrie Jock; Alpha Latray; Duane Stewart; Kay Stewart; Thomas Torrey; and Eloise Torrey, Defendants.

The Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians by Lawrence Francis, Chief, and Lloyd Benedict, Mike Mitchell, Bruce Roundpoint, Joe Jacobs, John Oakes, Angus Bonaparte, Jr., David Benedict, Joyce Sharow, Robert Sunday, William Sunday and John Lazore, Council Members, Plaintiffs, The United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. The State of New York, George E. Pataki as Governor of the State of New York, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp., David W. Oberlin, Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp., Niagara Mohawk Power Co., and Power Authority of the State of New York, Defendants.

No. 5:82-CV-783.

No. 5:82-CV-1114.

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

July 28, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Indian Law Resource Center, Washington, DC (Steven Tullberg, Alexandra Page, of counsel), for People of Longhouse at Akwesasne by Mohawk Nation Counsel of Chiefs.

Frances M. Zizila, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division-Indian Resources, Washington, DC, for U.S.

Hobbs Straus Dean & Walker, Washington, D.C. (Hans Walker, Jr., Charles Hobbs, of counsel), Sonosky Chambers Sachse Endreson & Perry (Harry R. Sachse, James T. Meggesto, of counsel), for Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians & St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council.

David E. Blabey, Albany, NY (Arthur T. Cambouris, of counsel), for Power Authority of State of New York.

Hiscock & Barclay, Syraqcuse, NY (Judith M. Sayles, Alan R. Peterson, of counsel), for County of St. Lawrence, County of Franklin, Village of Massena, Town of Bombay, Town and Village of Fort Covington, Key Bank of Northern New York, N.A.; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; Niagara Mohawk Power Co.; and Canadian National Railways.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany, NY (David B. Roberts, Christopher W Hall, Asst. Attorneys General, of Counsel), for State of New York.

OUTLINE

Page

Introduction

 .........................................................  321

Background

 ...........................................................  322
  

I. St. Regis IV

 ....................................................  322
 

II. Thompson II

 .....................................................  322

III. Overview of Arguments

 ...........................................  323

Discussion

 ...........................................................  324

Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

 ................................  324
 

I. Rule 12(f) Standard

 ..............................................  324

II. Affirmative Defenses

 .............................................  325
    

A. Standing

 ......................................................  325
    

B. "Defenses Already Considered By the Court"¹

 ..............  329
       

1. Laches

 .....................................................  330
       

2. Eleventh Amendment

 .........................................  333
    

C. "Defenses Clearly Rejected By the Supreme Court"

 ..............  335
       

1. Abatement

 ..................................................  335
       

2. Statute of Limitations

 .....................................  336
          

a. "Good Faith" Modification

 ...............................  336
          

b. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

 ........................................  337
    

D. "Delay Based Defenses"

 ........................................  338
       

1. Estoppel

 ...................................................  338
       

2. Mitigation

 .................................................  340
    

E. Non-Delay Based Defenses

 ......................................  341
       

1. Accord & Satisfaction

 ......................................  342
       

2. Unclean Hands

 ..............................................  342
       

3. Waiver

 .....................................................  342
    

F. "Non-Federal Ratification" Defenses

 ...........................  343
        

1. Abandonment

 ...............................................  343
        

2. Release & Relinquishment

 ..................................  346
           

a. "Defense Based on Treaty of Buffalo Creek"

 .............  348
        

3. "State Title"

 .............................................  348
    

G. Exhaustion of Remedies

 ........................................  349
    

H. Indispensable Party

 ...........................................  350
    

I. "Defense of Setoff or Offset"

 .................................  352
    

J. Disestablishment & Diminishment

 ...............................  355
    

K. Defenses Properly Pled

 ........................................  355

III. Conclusion as to Affirmative Defenses

 ...........................  356

IV. Counterclaims

 ....................................................  356
    

A. Legal Standards

 ...............................................  357

B. Immunity

 ...........................................................358
    

1. "Recoupment"

 ...................................................359
    

2. Disestablishment

 ...............................................360
    

3. "Contribution"

 .................................................360
    

4. "Quiet Title Act"

 ..............................................363
    

5. Administrative Procedure Act

 ...................................363
    

6. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Act

 ...........................363

V. Rulings

 ...........................................................363

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

McCURN, Senior District Judge.

"This is deja vu all over again." Those immortal words, attributed to the former New York Yankee great and Hall of Fame catcher Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra,² come readily to mind here. The arguments which the parties are raising have a strangely familiar ring to them. Indeed, all of the affirmative defenses and all of the counterclaims being challenged on these motions have already been considered either over two years ago in this action, see Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York, 146 F.Supp.2d 170 (N.D.N.Y.2001) ("St. Regis IV"), or in other land claim litigation before this and other federal district and appellate courts.

INTRODUCTION

Currently pending before the court are two separate but related sets of motions. Broadly stated, in the first set of motions the plaintiffs³ are seeking to strike numerous affirmative defenses, while in the second the Tribes and the United States as plaintiff-intervenor,⁴ are seeking to dismiss certain counterclaims.⁵

BACKGROUND

I. St. Regis IV

Much of the extensive background of this case was recounted in St. Regis IV, 146 F.Supp.2d at 174-77. The interplay between St. Regis IV and the current motions warrants a brief overview of that case though, as well as what has transpired in the interim.

From the outset the history of this lawsuit can best be described as a series of fits and starts, as to both settlement efforts and motion practice. Despite initial motion filings in late 1989, because of sporadic and ultimately futile negotiation efforts, along with the evolving state of Indian land claim law, not until May 30, 2001 did the court issue its first substantive decision in this case.

At that time the court made several rulings which are germane here. First, it denied the State's and the Power Authority's motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. See id. at 180-81. Next, the court rejected the defendants' argument that the Canadian Band and the People of the Longhouse lacked standing, because supposedly they do not have the requisite tribal status to bring claims under the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177 (West 2001) ("NIA"). See id. at 181-85. Third, the court rejected defendants' argument that the equitable doctrine of laches bars the Tribes' and the U.S.' claims. See id. at 186.

Since St. Regis IV, there has been no significant change in the status of this action. No discovery has yet been conducted. Nonetheless, almost exactly two years after St. Regis IV, a second round of substantive...