SAN MANUEL APPELLATE COURT

No. AP-2023-001

Dezzarae Henderson, Appellant,

v.

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Appellee.

Appeal from the San Manuel Tribal Court

Filed: May 15, 2023

 

Before TAYLOR, SEREBROV, and LENZI Appellate Judges.

SEREBROV, Appellate Judge.

Dezzarae Henderson was terminated as a Human Resource Manager with the San Manuel Tribe for poor work performance and for engaging in outside employment in violation of the Tribe's Standards of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Policies. Henderson, through counsel, submitted a Statement of Claim to Casino Human Resources for unlawful discharge. Her claim was denied. Henderson petitioned the Tribal Court to review the decision. At the Pre-Trial Hearing the parties agreed to electronic service of documents. The Tribe subsequently electronically served Requests for Admission on Henderson, which she failed to timely answer. The Tribe then moved for and was granted Summary Judgment by the Tribal Court. Henderson seeks reversal Summary Judgment alleging four Tribal Court errors. This Court has jurisdiction, and we reverse on other grounds.

I. Background

Dezzarae Henderson began working for the San Manuel Tribe at its Casino as a Human Resources Manager in September 2019. On April 26, 2021, Henderson took Family and Medical Leave Act approved leave. When Henderson returned on May 10, 2021, the Casino had hired a new Supervisory Manager who altered her workload. Henderson was subsequently accused of several instances of poor performance.

On June 10, 2021, Henderson officially complained of a hostile work environment and other alleged violations of employment law. Henderson's Supervisory Manager failed to respond to her allegations or to investigate them. In late June 2021, Henderson had several instances of negative interaction with her new Department Director. This resulted in a June 30, 2021, email thread with the Director in which Henderson expressed concern that she was being treated differently from coworkers and was consequently suffering from anxiety.

Subsequently, Henderson went on a short vacation, returning on July 7, 2021, and was then terminated. This basis of her termination was that she engaged in outside employment in violation of company policies. On October 4, 2021, attorney Willie W. Williams sent the Tribe a demand letter on Henderson's behalf.1 On June 26, Williams submitted a Statement of Claim to Casino Human Resources alleging that during her employment Henderson was subjected to discrimination, retaliation for taking family leave, retaliation for complaining about disparate treatment, and retaliation for assisting an employee filing a hostile work environment complaint. Human Resources denied Henderson's Claim based on the findings of a third-party investigator.

On April 1, 2022, Henderson, pro se, petitioned the Tribal Court to review the Casino's Human Resources decision. On June 28, 2022, at a Pre-Trial Hearing the parties agreed to electronic service of documents. This was reflected in the Clerk's Minute Order of that date. Because the San Manuel Rules of Civil Procedure ("SMRCP") are silent as to electronic service, the Tribal Court interpreted SMRCP 28.1.5 as permitting it to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 5(b)(2) (electronic service). On July 8, 2022, the Tribe electronically served Henderson with Request for Admission asking her to admit that the Tribe did not discriminate, retaliate, or wrongfully terminate her. Henderson failed to respond to the Requests for Admission within the thirty-day period set in SMRCP 28.4.15(a).

On September 2, 2022, the Tribe moved for Summary Judgement based on the Requests for Admission being deemed as admitted in accordance with SMRCP 28.4.15(c)-(d). A hearing was held on November 1, 2022. On November 28, 2022, the Tribal Court entered its Order granting the Tribe's Motion for Summary Judgment. Henderson filed a timely Notice of Appeal on December 15, 2022.

On appeal Henderson argues the Tribal Court committed four reversable errors including: (1) the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and Movant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law; (2) the Tribal Court erred in misapplying the law in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) the Tribal Court erred in not properly weighing the competing facts in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) the Tribal Court abused its discretion by not allowing the case to proceed on the merits. We find these arguments to be moot because we reverse on other grounds.

II. Discussion

A. Stipulation for Service of Documents by Electronic Means has no Legal Basis

The genesis of the Tribal Court's decision to grant summary judgment in the present action results from a June 28, 2022, Pre-Trial Hearing agreement between the parties for electronic service of documents and the subsequent failure of Henderson to timely answer Requests for Admission. This agreement was based on silence as to electronic service in the SMRCP and the interpretation by the Tribal Court of SMRCP 28.1.5 as permitting it to use FRCP 5(b)(2). We disagree with the Tribal Court's conclusion and hold that it erred as a matter of law.

SMRCP 28.1.1 states, "These rules govern the procedure in the courts of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians ("Tribal Court" or "Court") in all suits of a civil nature." This section indicates that the SMRCP are statutory. The SMRCP are separate and distinct from the San Manuel Tribal Court Rules ("SMTCR"), which were promulgated by the San Manuel Judiciary Committee "to govern the day-to-day administration, practice, and procedure of the Court, not inconsistent with statute, and pursuant to the San Manuel Tribal Code Chapter 22, the San Manuel Judicial Code." SMRCP 28.1.1. It is thus clear that the SMRCP are statutory and the SMTCR are not. When a section of the SMTCR is inconsistent with the SMRCP they are not applied.

While nothing is stated in the SMJC as to specific interplay with the SMRCP, the SMJC does state that "In the event of conflict between this Code and other Tribal Codes, or other Tribal Laws, this Code shall control." SMJC 22.1.9(c). Clearly, this provision gives the SMJC the same "statutory" status as the SMRCP and designates it as controlling.

SMJC 22.5.1 provides that the Tribal Court "in deciding matters of both substance and procedure" shall apply a different order of other "mandatory authorities" from that of SMRCP 28.1.5. SMJC 22.5.1(b). Additionally, SMRCP 28.1.5 indicates "Any procedure or matter not specifically set forth herein may be handled in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where not in conflict with San Manuel Tribal law or the provisions of this Chapter." (emphasis added). We determine that due to the language of SMJC 22.1.9(c), SMRCP 28.1.5 is inapplicable. Moreover, even if SMRCP 28.1.5 was applicable, that section conflicts with "San Manuel Tribal law," specifically the list of "mandatory authorities" in SMJC 22.5.1.

We hold that because the SMRCP docs not permit general electronic service, and the list of "mandatory authorities" in SMJC 22.5.1 fails to address electronic service, the Tribal Court was not permitted to default to the FRCP. Consequently, the parties had the option to serve by mail or personal service as stated in other sections of the SMRCP.2 Significantly, electronic filing is only referenced in SMTCR Title 1 Section 1.8(d) (referencing only service on the court, not between parties). To extend the option for electronic service when the parties' consent has no support in the SMJC or the SMRCP would be to engage the Appellate Court in improper judicial legislation. Should the Tribe wish to provide for electronic service it will need to amend the SMJC.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the Tribal Court granting Summary Judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Appellate Judges TAYLOR AND LENZI concur.

 

Footnotes
1	Williams provided counsel to Henderson during the trial but was not admitted to practice before the San Manuel Court until October 10, 2022. He represents Henderson on appeal.
2	The SMRCP requires personal service in a number of places, including 28.2.2 (personal service), 28.2.4 (motions must be served on parties by mail or personal delivery), 28.5.2 (subpoenas must be served by an authorized person with proof of service), while in other sections no method of service is indicated 28.4.5 (interrogatories must be served on the other party but method is not stated), 28.4.7 (method for notice of deposition not stated, however (a) does state "A copy of the notice and copies of all questions served shall be delivered by the party taking the deposition to the officer designated in the notice, who shall take the testimony of the witness in response to the questions and to prepare, certify and file or mail the deposition, attached thereto the copy of the notice and the questions received by the officer."), 28.4.13 (requests for documents must be served on the other party but no method is specif1ed), 28.4.15 (no method is specified for requests for admission).