EST’s sovereign interests, citing for support Sac and Fox, 240 F.3d 1250; Yellowstone County v. Pease, 96 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir.1996); Oneida In sent tribes not necessary for adjudication of the Agreement to which they were parties because their interests aligned with those of the United States the United States’ representation would not compromise any obligation it may have to the plaintiffs or other Indian tribes); Sac and Fox, 240 F.3d at 1259-60 (although alternatively finding lack of indispensability, the court first held the absent tribe not necessary given the identity of interests between it and the defendant Secretary of Interior; the challenged actions were those of the Secretary, allowing for adequate judgment; and the absence of an alternative forum); Marion, 211 F.R.D. at 638 (<HOLDING>). The final case cited, Oneida, is similarly
holding that judgment based on terms of settlement agreement must be interpreted under law of contracts rather than law of judgments holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding the state of kansas not necessary based on the terms of the settlement agreement at issue before going on to find in the alternative that it was not indispensable holding that the issue of the voluntariness of a settlement agreement is waived on appeal if not raised before the board holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt