to immunity for violations of federal statutes.” (Pis' Mem. in Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss at 21 (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs have not argued that the Business Council is amenable to suit on their RICO claims, and in fact have focused exclusively on the individual Defendants. 12 . The Court has not addressed Count Eight of the Amended Complaint. This Count, entitled "injunctive relief,” does not allege a cause of action; instead, Count Eight is a prayer for injunctive relief based on the substantive claims raised in Counts One through Seven. 13 . Once tribal remedies have been exhausted, the tribal court's resolution of tribal law, and in particular its determination of who is a "member” of the Community, would not he subject to review by this Court. See Runs After, 766 F.2d at 352 (<HOLDING>); Burlington Northern R.R. v. Crow Tribal
holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws holding that a nonmember who files a civil claim in an indian tribal court consents to tribal jurisdiction 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 holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court