by the court’s decision on those claims. Rupp v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 45 F.3d 1241, 1245 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 324 (1982)); see also McClendon v. United States, 885 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Initiation of a lawsuit necessarily establishes consent to the court’s adjudication of the merits of that particular controversy.”). By consenting to the court’s jurisdiction to determine its own claims, however, a tribe does not automatically waive its immunity as to claims that could be asserted against it, even as to “related matters ... arising] from the same set of underlying facts.” McClendon, 885 F.2d at 630. The Supreme Court has thus emphasized that a tribe’s initiation of a lawsuit for injunctive relief does not wai 1460 (9th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Like filing a complaint, which invites the
holding that tribes voluntary participation in administrative proceedings is not the express and unequivocal waiver of tribal immunity that we require in this circuit holding that the tribal defendants removal of the case amounted to a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity in federal court recognizing that tribes have an interest in a uniform body of federal law in the area of tribal immunity holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that tribes did not waive their immunity by intervening in  administrative proceedings because any waiver must be unequivocal and may not be implied