Southcentral Foundation v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL HEALTH
CONSORTIUM,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:17-cv-00018-TMB
ORDER ON MOTION TO PARTICIPATE
AS AMICI CURIAE
(DKT. 308)
This matter comes before the Court on Metlakatla Indian Community, Kenaitze Indian
Tribe, Arctic Slope Native Association, Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Copper River Native
Association, Kodiak Area Native Association, Mt. Sanford Tribal Consortium, Norton Sound
Health Corporation, and Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium’s (collectively, “Amici”)
Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae (the “Motion”).1 “Amici are all participants in the Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium ([“ANTHC”]) that are represented on ANTHC’s Board of
Directors.”2 Defendant ANTHC “consents” to the Motion.3 Plaintiff Southcentral Foundation
(“SCF”) opposes the Motion.4 For the following reasons, the Motion at Docket 308 is GRANTED.
1 Dkt. 308 (Motion); Dkt. 315 (Reply).
2 Dkt. 308 at 2.
3 Id. at 1 n.1.
4 Dkt. 314 (Opposition).
Case 3:17-cv-00018-SLG Document 333 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 5

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
ANTHC, a consortium created in accordance with section 325 of the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-83, 111 Stat. 1543,
(“Section 325”), is “governed by a 15-member Board of Directors” (“Board”).5 Thirteen of the
Board’s directors (“Directors”) represent specific regional health entities (“RHEs”).6 The
remaining two Directors represent the “Indian tribes, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e), and sub-
regional tribal organizations which operate health programs not affiliated with the regional health
entities listed above and Indian tribes not receiving health services from any tribal, regional or sub-
regional health provider” (“Unaffiliated Tribes”).7
SCF filed this lawsuit to obtain declaratory relief and resolve disputes regarding ANTHC’s
rules of governance.8 In an interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that Section 325
“endowed each specified [RHE] with the right to have a ‘representative’ on the Board that stands
in the shoes of the designating entity by acting on its behalf.”9 As an ANTHC Tribal participant
5 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-
83, § 325, 111 Stat. 1543, 1597–98 (1997).
6 Pub. L. No. 105-83, § 325, 111 Stat. 1543, 1597 (Section 325 provides that each of the following
tribes may designate a representative to sit on the Board: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association,
Inc., Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Chugachmiut, Copper River Native Association,
Kodiak Area Native Area Association, Maniilaq Association, Metlakatla Indian Community,
Arctic Slope Native Association, Ltd., Norton Sound Health Corporation, SCF, Southeast Alaska
Regional Health Consortium, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., and Yukon-Kuskokwim Health
Corporation.).
7 Pub. L. No. 105-83, § 325, 111 Stat. 1543, 1597–98.
8 See generally Dkt. 2 (Complaint).
9 Southcentral Found. v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, 983 F.3d 411, 418 (9th Cir.
2020).
Case 3:17-cv-00018-SLG Document 333 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 5

3
with a representative on the Board, the Ninth Circuit then “conclude[d] that Section 325 conferred
governance and participation rights to SCF, which necessarily includes an entitlement to
information necessary to effectively exercise those rights.”10
Amici are several of the RHEs, Indian tribes, and sub-regional tribal organizations which
operate health programs not affiliated with the RHEs. Here, Amici request “leave to file an amicus
brief to assert their interests as necessary and indispensable parties.”11 Amici specifically seek to
rebut SCF’s assertion that “no absent party has claimed any interest in this case.”12 Amici assert
they only now seek leave to file this brief because “contrary to SCF’s assertion, Amici have a
significant interest in this case—an obvious and seemingly unquestioned point until the SCF
Opposition” to ANTHC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at Docket 296.13
SCF opposes Amici’s request for leave to file the proposed amicus brief and argues leave
should be denied for three reasons: (1) the brief is untimely, (2) Amici do not state how their
interests differ from ANTHC’s, and (3) Amici fail to identify any prejudice they may experience
if denied the opportunity to file their brief.14 SCF also clarifies that it did not intend to assert that
SCF possesses greater rights than the Unaffiliated Tribes, but only that “because none of the
Unaffiliated Tribes is a party to this case, the Court need not issue any ruling specific to their
rights.”15
10 Id. at 420.
11 Dkt. 308 at 1.
12 Id. at 2.
13 Id. at 3.
14 See generally Dkt. 314.
15 Id. at 14.
Case 3:17-cv-00018-SLG Document 333 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 5

4
Amici reply to SCF’s objections and assert that they “do not seek to raise new legal
arguments” but only seek to file their brief for the “narrow purpose . . . to affirm that Amici do
claim an interest in the subject of the litigation, but have chosen to preserve their sovereign
immunity and to seek a resolution to these disputes in the ANTHC Boardroom rather than a
courtroom.”16
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“There is no inherent right to file an amicus brief.”17 In the Ninth Circuit, “[i]t is well-
settled that a trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, permit the filing of an amicus curiae
brief.”18 “Amicus briefs are ‘frequently welcome . . . concerning legal issues that have potential
ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or
perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to
provide.’”19
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Court permits Amici to file their proposed amicus brief because Amici offer
information that is relevant to the resolution of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at Docket
296. “An amicus brief should normally be allowed . . . when the amicus has unique information or
16 Dkt. 315 at 5.
17 Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe, No. 2:14-CV-00170-BLW, 2014 WL 2218329, at *1 (D. Idaho
May 29, 2014).
18 Cnty. of Marin v. Martha Co., No. C 06-0200 SBA, 2007 WL 987310, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2,
2007) (quoting Warehouse Rest., Inc., et al. v. Customs House Rest., 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17556,
2 (N.D. Cal. 1982)).
19 California v. United States Dep't of Lab., No. 213CV02069KJMDAD, 2014 WL 12691095, at
*1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2014) (quoting N.G.V. Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, L.L.C., 355
F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005)).
Case 3:17-cv-00018-SLG Document 333 Filed 04/21/22 Page 4 of 5

5
perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to
provide.”20 Given the narrow scope of Amici’s brief, the Court accepts the proposed brief for the
sole purpose of rebutting SCF’s assertion in the Opposition to ANTHC’s Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, that “no absent party has claimed any interest in this case.”21 The fact that Amici
have asserted an interest in this case is of relevance to the Court’s analysis of whether the other
Tribal participants are necessary or required parties to this case.
The Court reminds Amici that by granting leave to file their proposed brief, Amici do not
become “a party and [have] no control over the litigation and no right to institute any proceedings
in it, nor can it file any pleadings or motions in the case.”22 Further, Amici’s “participation in this
matter does not bind the [Tribal participants] to any judgment of this Court, nor is it sufficient to
trigger res judicata effect.”23
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Participate as Amici Curiae at Docket 308 is
GRANTED. The Amici Brief filed at Docket 308-1 is ACCEPTED as filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 21st day of April, 2022.
/s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20 Cmty. Ass'n for Restoration of Env't v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D.
Wash. 1999).
21 Dkt. 302 at 10–13.
22 NGV Gaming, Ltd., LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 1068.
23 Id.
Case 3:17-cv-00018-SLG Document 333 Filed 04/21/22 Page 5 of 5