The court was not persuaded by defendants’ arguments in this regard at the July 8, 2002, hearing, but these issues will be further evaluated at a later date as these were issues raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss. 9 . Defendants have argued that because HCI is a subsidiary of a wholly owned tribal corporation it is somehow too far down the line to be entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. The court rejects this contention and finds there is no support for defendants position. See Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 157 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973) (”[T]he question of tax immunity cannot be made to turn on the particular form in which the Tribe chooses to conduct its business.”); Barker v. Menominee Nation Casino, 897 F.Supp. 389, 393 (E.D.Wis.1995) (<HOLDING>). 10 .Plaintiffs assert that Ex Parte Young
holding that an action against a tribal enterprise is an action against the tribe itself holding that a section 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe