§82.5.8 Strategic and Practical Considerations

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§82.5.8STRATEGIC AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Jurisdictional disputes involving Indian tribal courts pose thorny issues, and CR 82.5 provides little assistance in sorting them out. If federal law prescribes exclusive jurisdiction in tribal courts, CR 82.5(a) provides that the appropriate response to a corresponding superior court action is a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(1) or to transfer the case to the tribal court, if transfer is required by federal statute.

When the tribal court and state court have concurrent jurisdiction, separate actions could be filed in both forums. When separate actions are filed in tribal and federal forums, the doctrine of abstention and exhaustion of tribal court remedies requires the federal courts to abstain until a tribal court with a colorable claim of jurisdiction rules on the matter. For Washington state courts, CR 82.5(b) does not expressly discuss abstention, but the rule is designed to promote principles of comity, respect for the tribal court system, and judicial economy...