Rule 82.5.Tribal court jurisdiction

Rule 82.5 addresses jurisdiction shared or divided between Washington superior courts and the courts of federally recognized Indian tribes, and it covers three distinct topics under that heading rather than one.

Subsections (a) and (b) set the jurisdictional starting point. Where federal law grants or reserves exclusive jurisdiction over a matter to a tribal court, the superior court must dismiss the action under CR 12(b)(1), on a party's motion or its own initiative, unless federal law calls for transfer instead of dismissal. Where jurisdiction is concurrent between the state and tribal courts, the superior court has discretion -- not a duty -- to transfer the case if the interests of justice require it, weighing the nature of the action, the parties' interests and identities, convenience to the parties and witnesses, whether state or tribal law applies, and the remedy available in the tribal court.

Subsection (c) addresses enforcement rather than jurisdiction: Washington superior courts must recognize, implement, and enforce the orders, judgments, and decrees of a tribal court that held exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, unless the superior court finds the tribal court lacked jurisdiction over a party or the subject matter, denied due process under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, or does not reciprocally recognize and enforce Washington superior court orders. For a tribal money judgment specifically, the superior court may try to resolve any issues by contacting the tribal court that issued it, following the communication procedure set out in subsection (d).

Subsection (d) is a detailed communication protocol: a superior court may communicate with a tribal court about related pending or concluded proceedings, with the parties supplying both courts the contact information and case or docket numbers needed to make that possible. The court may let the parties take part in the communication; if they cannot or are not allowed to, they must get a chance to submit facts and arguments in writing beforehand. The superior court must record most communications and inform the parties, with access to that record, though communications limited to scheduling, administrative matters, or emergencies may happen without notifying the parties or keeping a record on the state side. Communications touching adult criminal matters must follow the stricter, record-keeping procedure; the rule separately confirms that superior courts and tribal courts may communicate about orders prohibiting contact under the full range of procedures set out above, not only the strict one. Subsection (d)(5) defines the term record, for these purposes, as information inscribed on a tangible medium or stored electronically and retrievable in perceivable form.