United States District Court, D. Alaska
GWITCHYAA ZHEE CORPORATION and GWICHYAA ZHEE GWICH'IN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, Plaintiffs,
v.
CLARENCE ALEXANDER and DACHO ALEXANDER, Defendants.
ORDER MOTION TO REMAND
H.
Russel Holland United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs
move to remand this case to state court.[1] This motion is
opposed.[2] Oral argument was not requested and is not
deemed necessary.
Background
Plaintiffs
are Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation and Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in
Tribal Government. Defendants are Clarence Alexander and
Dacho Alexander.
“Plaintiff
GZ Corporation is an” Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) “village corporation for the area of Fort
Yukon, Alaska.”[3] “Plaintiff Gwichyaa Zhee
Gwich'in Tribal Government . . . is a federally
recognized tribe. . . .”[4]
Plaintiffs
allege that “[p]ursuant to ANCSA, GZ Corporation
received title to land formerly held by the federal
government.”[5] Plaintiffs further allege that “[i]n
1994, Plaintiff GZ Corporation and Plaintiff Tribe executed a
Land Transfer Agreement that purports to transfer GZ
Corporation's title in the land at issue in the lawsuit
to the Tribe. However, the Land Transfer Agreement exempts
from that transfer any land GZ Corporation is required to
transfer as a § 14(c)(1) Claim.”[6]
Pursuant to § 14(c)(1) of [ANCSA], village corporations
that receive title to the surface estate of land formerly
held by the federal government are required to convey title
to property occupied by anyone that used the land as, among
other things, a primary residence, a primary place of
business, or as a subsistence campsite. . . .[7]
Plaintiffs
allege that in 2008, in order to comply with its obligations
under § 14(c)(1) of ANCSA, “GZ Corporation
submitted a ‘Map of Boundaries' to the federal
Bureau of Land Management . . . that identified”
14(c)(1) claims in the Fort Yukon area.[8] Plaintiffs allege
that “[t]he Fort Yukon Map of Boundaries created Tract
19 and 19A.”[9]
The
Fort Yukon Map of Boundaries states that
[t]his Map of Boundaries depicts all tracts of land to be
conveyed under section 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (85 stat 688) and represents the complete
fulfillment of the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation obligations
under section 14(c) of ANCSA, for the Village of Fort
Yukon.[10]
The
President of GZ Corporation certified “that to the best
of our knowledge, all conflicts concerning property lines
shown on this Map of Boundaries have been
resolved[.]”[11] The Deputy Mayor of Fort Yukon approved
the boundaries shown on the map and the BLM accepted the Map
for filing.[12] Plaintiffs allege that at the time the
Map of Boundaries was submitted to the BLM, defendant
Clarence Alexander was the Chairman of the Board of GZ
Corporation.[13]
Plaintiffs
allege that Tract 19 consists of 5.77 acres and that Tract
19A consists of 2.83 acres.[14] Plaintiffs further allege that
Tract 19A “has historically been a public easement used
by community members to turn around, park and stage vehicles
for using the Yukon River.”[15]
Plaintiffs
allege that “[i]n 2011, a surveyor was hired to conduct
a precise survey of the § 14(c)(1) Claims identified in
the Fort Yukon Map Boundaries.”[16] Plaintiffs
allege that defendants “convinced the surveyor to
include more acreage in their § 14(c)(1) Claim than
identified on the Fort Yukon Map of
Boundaries.”[17] Plaintiffs allege that “[a]s a
result, the initial survey drawings incorrectly provided the
Alexanders more acreage for what is now identified as Tract
19 than was originally allotted in the Fort Yukon Map of
Boundaries[.]”[18]Plaintiffs allege that the survey
drawings were corrected in 2014.[19]
“In
January 2016, Plaintiff GZ Corporation executed a quitclaim
deed that recognized its transfer of any and all of its
interest in Tract 19 to Defendant Clarence
Alexander.”[20] This transfer was based on a §
14(c)(1) claim Clarence Anderson had made in
1984.[21] Plaintiffs allege however that they
“have not executed a deed or other conveyance document
transferring ownership of Tract 19A to
anyone.”[22]
Plaintiffs
allege that defendants have “moved their belongings not
only onto Tract 19, but also Tract 19A.”[23] Plaintiffs
allege that “[o]n June 16, 2017, [they] wrote a letter
to the Alexanders asking them to remove all personal
equipment and debris from Tract 19A by June 30,
2017.”[24] Plaintiffs allege that in response
rather than removing their equipment and debris from Tract
19A, defendants “posted no trespassing signs on the
property.”[25] Plaintiffs allege that on September 28,
2017, they sent a letter to defendants demanding that they
remove the signs and their other property and “exit the
property by October 9, 2017.”[26]
Defendants
did not do so and on February 26, 2018, plaintiffs commenced
this case in state court. In their complaint, plaintiffs
assert an ejectment claim. In order to prove their ejectment
claim, plaintiffs are “required to show that they
ha[ve] a ‘legal estate' in the property and
‘a present right to possession of the
property.'” Fink v. Municipality of
Anchorage, 379 P.3d 183, 190 (Alaska 2016)
On
April 17, 2018, defendants removed the case to this court on
the basis ...