Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 1, No. 2

Preview Page

ARTICLES

C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian
Tribe of Oklahoma: Do Agreements to Arbitrate Contractual
Disputes Pierce the Veil of an Indian Nation’s Sovereign
Immunity?
By Javier F. Junco

 I. INTRODUCTION
The Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (the
Potawatomis or the Tribe) contracted with C & L Enterprises, Inc. (C &
L) for the installation of a roof on a building that was owned by the Tribe,
but was not located on tribal lands or on lands held in trust by the U.S.
government.1 The contract contained an arbitration clause, which
contained, in pertinent part, that “[a]ll claims or disputes between the
Contractor (C & L) and the Owner (the Tribe) arising out of or relating to
the Contract, or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in
accordance with the Construction [I]ndustry Arbitration Rules of the
American Arbitration Association currently in effect unless the parties
mutually agree otherwise.”2 The arbitration clause further sated that
“[t]he award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, and
judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in
any court having jurisdiction thereof.”3
After the contract had been executed, but before C & L commenced
work on the roof’s installation, the Tribe changed its mind about the
roofing material specified in the contract.4 Despite the contract with C &
L, the Tribe also solicited other bids and retained the services of a
different company to install the roof.5 Consequently, C & L submitted,
pursuant to the contract’s arbitration clause, a demand to arbitrate the
matter claiming the Potawatomis had breached the contract.6 The Tribe,