WSP03024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

litigation preceding the 1964 Decree. The prior deter- mination of Indian water rights in that Decree, the State Parties claim, precludes relitigation of that issue by the United States. Although the Indians were not parties to that litigation, the State Parties contend that adequate representation of the Indians' interests by the United States would preclude assertion of the omitted lands claims by the Indians. See Heckman v. United States, 224 U.S. 4l3, 445-46 (l9l2). Drawing from these principles the State Parties have moved for dismissal of these omitted lands claims pressed by the United States and the Indians.' The Tribes and the United States urge that the 1964 Decree understates the Tribes' rights and should be corrected. The evidence in the record convinces me that the prior decree is significantly in error on this point. I conclude that the Court has the power to reach these 'claims and should exercise that power to determine the substantive merits of those claims. H these claims were presented in a proceeding sep- arate from the original caSe, they would have been subject to the normal rules of preclusion. Contrary to the suggestions by some parties,' the water rights for the omitted lands are not new claims, separate from 1. Motion to Reject the "Omit~ Lande" Claims of the Un~ted Stetee and the Intervening Indian Tribes and Memorandum of POInts and Authorities in Support of Motion Filed on Behalf of the Metropoli- , tan Water Diatrict of Southern California (Jan. 1981) [hereinafter ci~ as Memorandum of Metropolitan Water Memorandum]; State Parti..' Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authoriti.. re the Doctrine of Res Judicata (Mar. 19S1) [hereinafter cited 8! State Parti..' Memoran- dum on Rea Judicata]. 2. Four Tribea' Opening Post-Trial Brief 109 (May 19S1); cf. Four Tribes' Pre-Trial Brief 5-S (Aug. 1980); United Statee' Pre-Trial Brief 16 (Aug. 1981); United States' Opening Post- Trial Brief 22-23, 23 n.JS (May 19S1). 30 OOJi;,!\) . the claims pressed in the prior proceeding. The claim in the original case, when properly described, em- braced the totality of water rights for the Reservation lands. The failure of the United States to present evi- dence regarding the particular acres now referred to as the omitted lands does not mean that 'Haims regarding such lands constitute new claims made by either the United States or the Tribes. Similarly it is not a new issue either, because the total amount of practicably irrigable land was litigated and determined in the ear- lier proceeding. Under these circumstances, tile normal rules of and exceptions to preclusion would apply to additional water rights claims presented in a separate action. See United States v. Truckee-Carson Irriga- tion District, 649 F.2d 1286, 1301-09 (9th Cir. 1981). Such considerations, however, are not completely ap- plicable to the present situation where the claims are presented in the same action in which the prior claims were adjudicated. H a party properly moves the rendering court in the same proceeding to correct or modify its judgment, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply. Stol- berg v. Members of the Board of Trustees, 641 F.2d 890, 893 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 485 (1976); McRae v. United States, 420 F.2d 1283, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1969); IB MooRS'S FEoDAL PRAcrrCB I 0.407, at 931-35 (2d ed. 1980); R. FIELD, B. KAPLAN & K. CLu- MONT, CIVIL PROCEDURE 860 (4th ed. 1978). In 8uch a case there is no final judgment from a aeparate action which should be accorded such preclusive effect. The proper inquiry then concerns whether there emt8 Ii procedure allowing the Court to consider the request. The present case turns upon the proper interpretation of Article IX of the 1964 Decree which provides that: 31