Although the cause of the Rabangs’ tort claims is the 2016 eviction
proceeding and attempted eviction, the Rabangs are not requesting that the court
adjudicate “ownership or right to possession” over the house at issue in this
lawsuit. Instead, they are requesting that the court acknowledge that the conduct
was “outrageous” enough to support their tort claims.
7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 83456-8-I/8
If the court were being asked to make a legal determination about property
ownership or rights, RCW 37.12.060 would preclude jurisdiction. Gilliland
contend that RCW 37.12.060 applies because the Rabangs’ “allegations all
source back to [their] alleged right to continue to occupy Tribal Property.” But the
Rabangs do not request relief affecting ownership or property rights. While the
Rabangs’ tortious claims do stem from the eviction proceedings, the merit of their
claims is not dependent on the court assessing the validity of the tribe’s eviction
or property ownership proceedings.
The Rabangs have urged this court to take judicial notice of the property
lease entered into by the Rabangs under the lease-to-own program. They assert
that “[t]aking judicial notice of the Lease will aid this Court in determining whether
the trial court properly applied RCW 37.12.060.” However, because we agree
with the Rabangs that RCW 37.12.060 does not apply, consideration of that
document is unnecessary.
Though we conclude that the court’s analysis here was incorrect, its
ultimate conclusion—that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the
dispute—was in fact correct.
Sovereign immunity applies
“Under federal law, tribal sovereign immunity comprehensively protects