With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nation of New York v. City of Sherrill, 337 F.3d 139 (2d Cir.2003); Marion County Landfill, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 211 F.R.D. 634 (D.Kan.2002); and Cassidy v. United States, 875 F.Supp. 1438 (D.Wash.1994). However, in each of these cases, the case-specific circumstances are readily distinguished from the circumstance here. In four of these cases, Sac and Fox, Yellowstone, Marion, and Cassidy, the absent tribes were deemed not necessary under Rule 19(b), necessitating a finding that they were not indispensable. Where a court finds a party not necessary under Rule 19(a), the party cannot be indispensable under Rule 19(b). Cassidy, 875 F.Supp. at 1445-46. That aside, the facts in each of those cases are readily distinguished from the facts here. See Yellowstone, 96 F.3d at 1172 (<HOLDING>); Cassidy, 875 F.Supp. at 1443-45 (holding the

A: holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity
B: holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws
C: holding that neither the tribe or its tribal court was necessary to the determination of the tribal courts jurisdiction given that the district courts judgment would be binding on the absent party and they did not have a legally protected interest at issue noting that the tribe was not a party to a relevant agreement or treaty with any party to the suit
D: holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity
C.