20 Ind. C1. Comm. 508

BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COXMISSION

THE TLINGIT AND HAIDA INDIANS OF 1 ALASKA, in its own right and 1 as the representatives of, or 1 successor to, the tribes, clans 1 and groups of Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, and 1

The tribes, clans and groups of Tlingit and Haida Indians of 1 Alaska, in their own right, jointly and severally, 1

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) 1

'ilE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1 1

Defendant. )

Docket No. 278-A

Decided: m y 14, 1969

Appearances: I. S. Weissbrodt, Attorney for Plaintiff, Abe W. Weissbrodt and Ruth W. Duhl on the brief.

Ralph A. Barney, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Clyde 0. Martz, Attorney for Defendant.

OPIRION OF THE COMMISSION

Yarborough, Commissioner, delivered the opinion of the Comission.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the First Supplemental and Amended

Petition filed September 13, 1968 on grounds of res judicata and for

failure to state a claim within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Memoranda have been filed by the parties and the Commission has heard

argument on the questions involved.

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 508 509

A s a p re face t o a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e con ten t ions , a s t a t emen t of t h e

procedura l h i s t o r y of t h e case i s necessary . The Act of June 1 9 , 1935

(49 S t a t . 388) au thor ized t h e T l i n g i t and Haida Ind ians of Alaska t o

f i l e s u i t i n t h e Court of Claims f o r a l l then-accrued c l a ims , l e g a l and

e q u i t a b l e , f o r proper ty r i g h t s of t h e Indians l o s t t o them by a c t i o n of

t h e United S t a t e s . P l a i n t i f f s ' p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d i n t h a t Court October

1, 1947 (No. 47900)and proceedings t h e r e were concluded January 1 9 , 1968.

The op in ions of t h e Court and f i n d i n g s of f a c t a r e r epo r t ed a t 147 C t .

C l . 315 (1959) and 182 C t . C 1 . 130 (1968).

(- Meanwhile, t h e Indian Claims Commission Act was enac ted August 1 3 ,

k- 1946. P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a t ircely p e t i t i o n on August 9 , 1951 w i t h t h e

.7 % I n d i a n Claims Commission. On October 11, 1951, defendant f i l e d t h e --

f i r s t of a series of motions r e q u e s t i n g an ex tens ion of t ime i n which t o

answer, and, on November 17 , 1960, moved t o d ismiss t h e p e t i t i o n on grounds

of t h e pendency of t h e Court of Claims s u i t . On December 7, 1960, t h e

p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e Commission proceedings should b e s t a y e d pend-

ing d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e Court of C l a i m s s u i t . A f t e r such d i s p o s i t i o n i n

1968, defendant ' s motion t o d ismiss w a s withdrawn, and p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d

amended p e t i t i o n s sever ing and r e s t a t i n g t h e i r causes of a c t i o n . Th i s

p e t i t i o n , Docket No. 278-A, s t a t i n g ~ e t i t i o n e r s ' f i s h i n g r i g h t s c l a i m ,

was f i l e d September 13, 1968; defendant moved d i s m i s s a l October 29, 1968.

20 Ind. C1. Comm. 508 510

Reserving for the moment the question of - res judicata, we examine

defendant's contention that the Court of Claims decision in the Tlingit

and Haida case No. 47900 forecloses the validity of the claim asserted

here. The claim in the amended petition of our case No. 278-A is stated

as follows:

"In breach of 'fair and honorable dealings that are not recognized by any existing rule of law or equity', the United States, to the great damage of, and loss to, -the. Tlingit and Haida ,

(a) encouraged, assisted and permitted citizens of the United States to invade and exploit the fisheries to which the Tlingit and Haida, under their property concepts and in accordance with their way of life, had exclusive rights; and

(b) prevented the Tlingit and Haida from exer- cising their exclusive rights and dominion over the use of their fisheries in accordance with the Tlingit and Haida property concepts and way of life; and

(c) took from the Tlingit and Haida fisheries to which the Tlingit and Haida, under their property concepts and in accordance with their way of life, had exclusive rights. I'

In its decision analyzing the existing precedents of law and equity,

the Court of Claims has expressly denied the petitioners any exclusive

right to the fish of navigable waters based on their aboriginal occupancy

of the area. Tlingit and Haida Indians v. United States, 182 Ct. Cls. 130.

There is no need to repeat that discussion here; we regard it as conclusive

that petitioners had no property right in the uncaught fish.

/

\ . 20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 508 511

I n t h e I n d i a n ' s concept , however, t.hey: d i d have such an e x c l u s i v e

r i g h t . Could t h e o b l i g a t i o n of f a i r and honorable d e a l i n g s by t h e

Government wi th t h e Ind ians extend t o f i n d i n g a breach i f t h e Government

f a i l e d t o recognize o r confirm such an Ind ian c l a im of r i g h t i n some way?

S t a t e d t h i s g e n e r a l l y , we f e e l t h e answer must be no. The p u b l i c p o l i c y

of t h e United S t a t e s , t h a t a r i g h t of c a p t u r e ex t ends t o a l l a l i k e i n

pursu ing t h e f i s h of navigable waters , i s s o roo ted i n precedent and en-

dowed w i t h m e r i t t h a t . w e could no t f i n d a breach of any o b l i g a t i o n by

t h e Government i f i t d i d not derogate t h i s r i g h t of a l l f o r t h e . b e n e f i t

of Ind ian p e t i t i o n e r s by some way r a t i f y i n g t h e i r a s s e r t i o n of e x c l u s i v e

r i g h t s . See Hynes v. GrimesiPacking Co., 337 U.S. 86 (1949).

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e Government a t t h e l e a s t had an o b l i g a t i o n t o

p r o t e c t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s i n t h e i r e x e r c i s e of t h e i r r i g h t of c a p t u r e .

From t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Court of Claims, w e know t h a t T l i n g i t and Haida

s u b s i s t e n c e depended on t h e i r ca t ch from t h e sea. W e can conce ive of

a c t s t h a t might b e done by t h e Government t h a t would amount t o a breach

of f a i r and honorable dea l ings i n i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n e r s '

r i g h t of c a p t u r e of t h e f i s h on which t h e i r s u b s i s t e n c e depended. Some

s t a t emen t s by t h e Court of C l a i m s i n d i c a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e of such f a c t s :

"***However, t h e manner i n which t h e Government o f f i c i a l s administered t h e Organic Act of 1884, and t h e a c t u a l pro.visions of subsequent l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o land i n Alaska, made i t p o s s i b l e f o r w h i t e s e t t l e r s , miners, t r a d e r s and businessmen t o l e g a l l y depr ive the T l f n g i t and Haida I n d i a n s of t h e i r use of t he f i s h i n g a r e a s , t h e i r hun t ing and g a t h e r i n g grounds and t h e i r t imber l a n d s and t h a t i s p r e c i s e l y what was done.***" 147 C t . C l s . a t 339-40. See Findings 101 and 102, 147 C t . C l s . 435-6.

20 Ind. C1. Corn. 508 512

There are also findings with a contrary thrust, but also not determinative

of the issue. The Court of Claims was concerned with takings of a property

right, not possible interference with the right of capture.

The extent of the Government's obligation of fair and honorable

dealings with a tribe cannot be set out abstractly, but must be determined

in the context of all the facts of the transactions between the Government

and the Indians. "The measure of accountability depends, whatever the

. label, upon the whole complex of factors and elements which should be

taken into consideration." Oneida Tribe of Indians v. United States, 165

Ct.'Cls. 487,494 (1964). We feel the petition in Docket No. 278-A con-

tains within it a claim not foreclosed by the Court of Claims in its

-Tlingit and Haida case: whether there was a lack of fair and honorable 5 dealings with respect to the petitioners1 right of capture of fish.

Defendant urges that petitioners' claim here could have been asserted

in the Court of Claims suit, and that Court's decision on petitioners'

fishing rights is res judicata as to the fishing rights claim asserted

here.

1: When a claim is presented under either clause 3 or 5, section 2 of

the act, and the defense of res judicata is interposed by the Government,

the Indian Claims Commission must compare the pleadings in the case with

the prior decision and its jurisdictional act. Disregarding for the

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 508

moment t h e ques t ion of i d e n t i t y of f a c t s o r i s s u e s , i f it appea r s t h a t t h e

c la im presented i s one which could not have been reached by t h e c o u r t i n

t h e p r i o r case , r e s j u d i c a t a does n o t apply. This i s s o even though r e -

covery could have been had f o r t h e Indians on some theo ry cogn izab le by

t h e cou r t a t t h a t time." The Creek Nation v. United S t a t e s , 168 C t . C I S .

483, a t 490 (1964).

The claim here is based on a breach f a l l i n g under Sec. 2(5) of o u r

Act.: "Claims based upon f a i r and honorable dea l ings t h a t a r e n o t recognized

by any e x i s t i n g r u l e of law o r equi ty ." On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e s u i t b e f o r e

t h e Court of C l a i m s concerned a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of ~ e t i t i o n e r ' s l e g a l and

e q u i t a b l e proper ty r i g h t s , s o l i m i t e d by t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a c t . Unques- \

t i o n a b l y t h e Court of Claims d e c i s i o n i s based s o l e l y on p e t i t i o n e r ' s l e g a l

and e q u i t a b l e property r i g h t s , and no a c t u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a " f a i r and

honorable deal ings" claim occurred,, T l i n g i t and Haida I n d i a n s v . United

S t a t e s , supra .

The au tho r i za t ion f o r " f a i r and honorable dea l ings" c l a ims of our

1946 A c t c r ea t ed a new cause of a c t i o n t h a t before had n o t been a u t h o r i z e d

i n I n d i a n claims j u r i s d i c t i o n a l acts. A t t h e t i m e of enactment of t h e

I n d i a n Claims Commission Act, s p e c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a c t s had a u t h o r i z e d

some I n d i a n claims s u i t s be fo re t h e Court of C l a i m s ; some had been f i l e d

and w e r e pending t h e r e , some had n o t y e t been f i l e d . S e c t i o n 11 o f t h e

I n d i a n Claims Commission Act con ta ins t h e Congressional d i r e c t i v e f o r recon-

c i l i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n s of t h e Court and t h e Commission:

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 508 514

-. "Any s u i t ' p e n d i n g i n t h e Court of Claims o r t h e Supreme

-Court of t h e United S t a t e s o r which s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e Court of Claims under e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n , s h a l l no t be t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Commission: Provided , That t h e p rov i s ions of s e c t i o n 2 of t h i s Act , w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e deduct ion of payments, o f f s e t s , coun te rc l a ims and demands, s h a l l supersede t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e p a r t i c u l a r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l Act under which any pending o r au tho r i zed s u i t i n t h e Court of Claims has been o r w i l l be au tho r i zed : Provided f u r t h e r , That t h e Court of Claims i n any s u i t pending b e f o r e i t a t t h e t ime of t h e approval of t h i s A c t s h a l l have e x c l u s i v e j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o hea r and determine any c l a im based upon f a i r and honorable dea l ings a r i s i n g ou t of t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of any such s u i t . Aug. 1 3 , 1946, 60 S t a t . 1052.

Defendant a rgues t h a t t h e l a s t c l a u s e of Sec t ion 11 gave t o t h e . . .

Court of Claims e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r t h e f a i r and honorable

d e a l i n g s c l a im p l e d here . P e t i t i o n e r s p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s s u i t was

n o t y e t

d a t e o f

"pending" be fo re t h e Court of Claims, on ly a u t h o r i z e d , a t t h e

t h e Act.

t h i n k t h a t a proper c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e

..L

-- l e a d s t o a r e s u l t i n harmony wi th t h e p l a i n meaning of i t s words. The

f i r s t c l a u s e of Sec t ion 11 s t a t e s t h e two c l a s s e s of c a s e s , "pending"

and "au thor ized ;" t h e second c l a u s e a g a i n r e f e r s t o t h e two c l a s s e s ,

b u t t h e t h i r d by i ts terms a p p l i e s on ly t o "pending" s u i t s . Th i s re-

f l e c t s a p l a n t h a t i s i n accord wi th t h e Congress iona l i n t e n t a s re-

f l e c t e d i n t h e m a t e r i a l s of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of t h e A c t . A l l

a u t h o r i z e d and pending ca se s would be l e f t b e f o r e t h e Court of C l a i m s

f o r l i t i g a t i o n t h e r e , s o t h a t p r epa ra t i on d i r e c t e d t o t h a t t r i b u n a l

would n o t be wasted. The new uniform "o f f se t " p r o v i s i o n s of t h e I n d i a n

i - 20 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 508 515

\

Claims Commission Act would be appl ied t o a l l pending and au tho r i zed c a s e s

be fo re t h e Court of Claims. On cases a l r e a d y pending be fo re t h e Cour t ,

I 1 f a i r and honorable deal ings1 ' c laims would be ad jud ica t ed t h e r e e x c l u s i v e l y ,

wi thout a s e p a r a t e proceeding before t h e Indian Claims Commission. But on

c a s e s n o t y e t f i l e d , " f a i r and honorable dea l ings" c la ims should be t r i e d

b e f o r e t h e new Commission, s e t up t o hear t h i s new cause of a c t i o n (and,

of c o u r s e , o t h e r s ) . That t he Congressional i n t e n t was t h a t wherever

p o s s i b l e t h e " f a i r and honorable deal ing" cases would be a s p e c i a l s u b j e c t

m a t t e r t o be heard mostly before t h e Commission i s r e in fo rced by S e c t i o n

24 of t h e A c t , whereby the cont inuing j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Court of Claims

t o h e a r newly accru ing Indian claims d i d n o t i nc lude t h e g ran t of j u r i s -

(\ .- d i c t i o n of " f a i r and honorable

It is o u r conclusion t h a t

Sec. 2(5) cause of ac t ion by a

deal ings" c la ims .

p e t i t i o n e r s proper ly preserved t h e i r

s epa ra t e f i l i n g be fo re t h e Indian Claims

Commission. The Court of Claims d i d no t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hea r t h a t

c l a i m i n i t s s u i t and t h e claim i s not bar red by r e s j u d i c a t a from be ing

heard h e r e . Summary d ismissa l a t t h i s s t a g e is no t app ropr i a t e and t h e

c l a i m shou ld proceed t o t r i a l on t h e merits.

W e concur :

%GL%zA-L T. Vance, Chairman

M a r g a r e d ~ . P i e r c e , Commissioner

*Commissioner Blue d id n o t p a r t i c i p a t e * ~ r a n t l e ~ Blue, Commissioner i n t h e cons ide ra t ion o r d e c i s i o n i n

t h i s case .

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 508 516

'uykendall , Commissioner, d i s sen t ing :

I a g r e e with the ma jo r i t y t h a t t h e T l i n g i t and Haida s u i t i n t h e Cour t

of Claims, though au thor ized , was n o t pending a t t h e t i m e of t h e app rova l of

t h e Indian Claims Commission Act, and t h e r e f o r e t h e second p r o v i s o of S e c t i o n

11 was not app l i cab le t o p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n i n t he Court o f Claims. I

be l i eve , neve r the l e s s , t h a t r e s ad jud ica t a a p p l i e s .

Let u s now t u r n t o t h e r a t h e r i n s c r u t a b l e cause of a c t i o n which t h e

ma jo r i t y f i n d s t o be ex t an t . It is , a s I understand i t , based on t h e

f a i l u r e of t h e United S t a t e s t o p r o t e c t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s i n t h e i r r i g h t t o

c a p t u r e f i s h and e x i s t s by v i r t u e of the " f a i r and honorable d e a l i n g s - c l a u s e

contained i n Sec t ion 2 of t h e Act. I understand t h e m a j o r i t y t o s a y t h a t i t

d i d no t e x i s t under t h e Act which au thor ized t h e T l i n g i t s and Haidas t o b r i n g

-wit i n the Court of C l a i m s . (Act of June 19, 1925, 49 S t a t . 388, Ch. 275.) 6 5;

I assume t h a t t h i s cause of a c t i o n i s based on a p r o p e r t y r i g h t o r

i n t e r e s t ( t h e r i g h t t o cap tu re f i s h ) and i s no t simply a p e r s o n a l t o r t ' a c t i o n

wi th no p r o p e r t y r i g h t s o r i n t e r e s t s as i t s b a s i s . Th i s must be s o , as I

know of no c la im be fo re t h i s Commission which has been s u c c e s s f u l l y p rosecu ted

which d i d n o t involve sane kind of proper ty i n t e r e s t , and have doubt as t o

whether a c t i o n s f o r personal t o r t s can be maintained here . Such c a u s e s of

a c t i o n o r d i n a r i l y do no t surv ive t h e dea th of t h e i n j u r e d o r wronged person

and t h e r e f o r e could not now be deemed t o be owned by any t r i b e , band o r

i d e n t i f i a b l e group. More important ly, i t was t h e d e p r i v a t i o n of t h e

p rope r ty of I n d i a n t r i b e s , no t t h e personal wrongs of v a r i o u s k i n d s which

t h e members t he reo f may have su f f e red which has damaged t h e l i v i n g descend-

a n t s of t h o s e Indians . And i t is t h i s m a t e r i a l damage which t h e I n d i a n

\..A

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 508

Claims Commission Act a t t empt s t o r e c t i f y .

The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of t h e Indian Claims Commission Act c l e a r l y

shows t h a t t h e purpose of t he " f a i r and honorable d e a l i n g s " c l a u s e was t o

g i v e t h e same b a s i s f o r s u i t s before t he Ind ian Claims Commission a s t h a t

1 / which was g iven t o t h e T l i n g i t s and Haidas i n t he Act above mentioned. -

1/ Report No. 1466 from t h e House Committee on Ind ian A f f a i r s , da t ed - December 20, 1945, which accompanied H. R. 4497, t h e b i l l which, w i t h amendments, u l t i m a t e l y became t h e Indian Claims Commission Act, con- t a i n s t h e fo l lowing .language on page 12 - thereof :

"The s i x t h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , supra , permi ts I n d i a n t r i b e s t o a s s e r t any c la im which would a r i s e on a b a s i s of f a i r and honorable dea l ings , even though no t recognized by any ex- i s t i n g r u l e of l a w o r equi ty . This ex t ens ion o f j u r i s d i c t i o n i s be l i eved t o be j u s t i f i e d by reason of t h e f a c t t h a t w e have always t r e a t e d t h e Indian t r i b e s as non s u i j u r i s and have s e t ou r se lves up a s t h e i r guardians. I n t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p many c la ims , n o t s t r i c t l y l e g a l , bu t m e r i t o r i o u s i n c h a r a c t e r have developed, which t h e Congress has recognized i n a few s p e c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a c t s (e .g . , T l i n g i t and Haida C l a i m s Act of 1935 (49 S t a t . 388), a s amended by t h e a c t s o f June 5 , 1942 (56 S t a t . 543), and June 4 , 1945 (Publ ic , No. 70, 79th Cong., 1st s e s s . ) ) . * * *"

During t h e deba te of H. R. 4497 on t h e f l o o r of t h e House, Congressman Henry M. Jackson, t h e au tho r and manager of t h e b i l l s t a t e d t h e fol low- i n g which appears on pages 5312 and 5313 of t h e Congress iona l Record f o r May 20, 1946:

"In o rde r t o make s u r e t h a t we have inc luded a l l p o s s i b l e c l a i m s wi th in t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e C o m i s s i o n , w e have gone over t h e va r ious s p e c i a l Ind ian j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a c t s t h a t Congress has passed i n r ecen t years and put t oge the r t h e v a r i o u s ph rases t h a t a r e used i n t hese d i f f e r e n t a c t s . We might have condensed t h i s language bu t we thought i t b e s t even a t t h e r i s k of some d u p l i c a t i o n o r overlapping t o make s u r e t h a t w e had covered every s o r t of case which Congress has i n r e c e n t yea r s cons idered worthy of a hearing. It w i l l be noted t h a t some of t h e c a t e g o r i e s r e f e r t o pure ly l e g a l c laims, whi le o t h e r s r e f e r t o c la ims based on e q u i t y and f a i r dea l ing , such a s Congress pe rmi t t ed t o be heard i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a Claims Act of 1928, and t h e Alaskan T l i n g i t and Haida Claims Act of 1935. * * *I1

20 Ind. C1. Comm. 508 518

I t appears t o me t h a t the T l i n g i t and ~ a i d a Act authorized s u i t on

every conceivable kind of property r i g h t , and did not l i m i t those Indians

t o purely l e g a l and equ i t ab le property r i g h t s . The t i t l e of the Act speaks

of "*** any and a l l claims which said Indians may have or claim t o have ***.It

Although Sec t ion 2 commences with the words: " A l l claims of whatever na tu re ,

l e g a l o r equ i t ab le *x*", the e n t i r e Act, plus the l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y

above c i t e d , fo rces the conclusion t h a t the words " legal o r equitable"

a r e d e s c r i p t i v e and no t r e s t r i c t i v e . I n any event they could not poss ib ly

r e s t r i c t o r modify i n any way the cause of a c t i o n created i n Sect ion 2

"** f o r the f a i l u r e o r r e f u s a l of the United S t a t e s t o p r o t e c t t h e i r .

i n t e r e s t s i n lands o r o the r t r i b a l o r community property i n Alaska o r

f o r l o s s of use of the same.***" A f o r t i o r i , the cause of a c t i o n the

- .llajority desc r ibe was authorized by the T l i n g i t and Haida Act, supra. I t

a l s o was considered and passed upon by the Court of Claims i n i t s 1968

dec i s ion , 182 C t . c Z . 130 a t page 145, where the Court sa id :

"*** The land taken prevented access t o the f i s h i n g s i t e and denied the Indian h i s opportunity t o f i s h a s e a s i l y a s had been previously poss ib le . The value of t h e .land and the resources on t h a t land which enhanced i t s value, and t o which they had t i t l e , a r e the only bases f o r compensation."

The cause of ac t ion the majori ty see a s remaining u n l i t i g a t e d is and

can only be the same as t h a t which has already been adjudicated; namely, a

proper ty i n t e r e s t i n f i s h . "That which we c a l l a rose, By any o the r name

would smell a s sweet."

Furthermore, the ac t ion of the Commission leaves the p a r t i e s i n a

most u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s t a t e . We say t h a t ~ e t i t i o n e r s ' c laim a s now presented

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 508 '-.-

should be dismissed, bu t we do n o t d i smis s it. P e t i t i o n e r s may n o t wish

t o accept the views of t h e m a j o r i t y and proceed on t h e b a s i s t hey a u t h o r i z e ,

and in s t ead , may wish t o appea l . We should not now depr ive them o f t h a t

r i g h t . On the o the r hand, t h e defendant has been t o l d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n

should be dismissed, bu t we d o n ' t d i smis s i t . It i s doub t fu l i f t h e

defendant can appeal a t t h i s t ime.

Under the circumstances, I would f avor c e r t i f y i n g t h i s m a t t e r t o t h e

Court of Claims pursuant t o S e c t i o n 20(a) of t h e Act.

I would grant t h e motion t o d ismiss .