## Facts

- Debra Bassett, operating as Bassett Productions, developed film and television projects.
- In October 1994, Bassett met with representatives of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe regarding a Museum film about the Pequot War.
- Bassett and Theresa Bell (for the Tribe) signed a confidentiality agreement stating information from Bassett Productions was proprietary and returnable upon request.
- In May 1995, Jack Campisi, communicating for the Tribe, indicated the Tribe intended to hire Bassett, contingent on a negotiated contract and acceptable script.
- In August 1995, Bassett Productions and the Tribe executed a Letter Agreement listing Bassett Productions as “Producer” and the Tribe as “Owner,” without defining those terms.
- Bassett claimed she developed treatments and other creative materials, and that the Tribe and Museum used her ideas/materials without permission by hiring others to make a film.
- Bassett sued for (1) federal copyright infringement against the Tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center, and (2) state-law contract and tort claims (including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of ideas, and conversion) against the Tribe, Museum, and individuals (Bell and Campisi).
- The district court dismissed: (1) copyright claims against the Tribe and Museum based on tribal immunity, (2) state-law claims against the Tribe based on immunity, and (3) all claims against the non-tribal defendants under Rule 19(b) as supposedly requiring the Tribe’s presence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Copyright Act unequivocally abrogates tribal sovereign immunity, permitting a federal copyright infringement suit against a tribe absent waiver.
2. Whether dismissal based on tribal sovereign immunity is properly treated as lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.
3. Whether the Tribe was an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) requiring dismissal of claims against the Museum and individual defendants when the Tribe could not be joined due to immunity.

## Decision

- The court held the Tribe was immune from the federal copyright claims because Congress did not explicitly abrogate tribal sovereign immunity in the Copyright Act and the Tribe did not waive immunity.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the copyright claims against the Tribe, but modified the basis: dismissal should be under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(1).
- The court held the Tribe was not an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) as to the claims against the non-tribal defendants.
- The court vacated the Rule 19(b) dismissal of claims against the Museum, Bell, and Campisi and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Indian tribes possess common-law sovereign immunity from suit unless the tribe clearly waives immunity or Congress unequivocally abrogates it.
- Congressional abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity requires explicit statutory language; general references to “any person” or similar broad terms are insufficient.
- Sovereign immunity is properly treated as a defense that may be asserted or waived; dismissal on immunity grounds is appropriately analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than as an Article III subject-matter defect.
- Under Rule 19(b), an immune sovereign is not automatically indispensable; courts must weigh prejudice, the ability to shape relief, the adequacy of a judgment without the absent party, and the plaintiff’s access to an alternative remedy.
- Claims against non-tribal actors related to an immune tribe may proceed when relief can be limited to those defendants without imposing obligations on the tribe.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that tribal sovereign immunity barred federal copyright claims against the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe because the Copyright Act does not explicitly authorize suits against tribes and the Tribe did not waive immunity; however, it allowed the suit to continue against the non-tribal defendants by ruling the Tribe was not an indispensable party under Rule 19(b) and remanding for further proceedings.


Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d 343 (2d Cir. 2000)