Here are the relevant materials in Brice v. Stinson (N.D. Cal.):
Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendants’ third affirmative defense; that some defendants are protected by or some claims extinguished by tribal immunity. In their opposition, defendants admit they personally “are not entitled to assert or invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to these claims” but nonetheless argue plaintiffs’ litigation “of these claims against shareholders of entities providing contractual services to those lenders is a significant infringement on the sovereignty of the tribes. . . . .” Dkt. No. 197 at 22. Defendants miss the point. The claims here hinge on the personal conduct of the defendants. While that conduct is based in significant part on the services defendants personally engaged in or approved to be provided to the Tribes, the claims do not impede on the sovereignty of the Tribes where the Tribes are not defendants in this case and no Tribal Entities remain. Absent apposite caselaw or facts showing how this action “interferes with the purpose or operation of a federal policy regarding tribal interests,” tribal immunity is irrelevant to this action.