Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Federal Court Allows Amended Suit against Seneca Holdings in Post-Hurricane Sandy Construction Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Private Solutions Inc v. SCMC LLC (D. N.J.):

53-1 Plaintiff Motion to Amend complaint

55 Opposition

58 Reply

63 DCT Order

An excerpt:

As Breakthrough makes clear, determining whether an economic entity such as Seneca Holdings benefits from tribal sovereign immunity requires a fact-intensive inquiry. The Court recognizes that Seneca Holdings has produced its Second Amended Charter, which discusses the economic entity’s formation, purpose, structure, and relationship to the Seneca Nation. [Docket Entry No. 55-1]. The Charter makes clear that Seneca Holdings was organized under tribal law and was created for the purpose of facilitating the Tribe’s economic interests. The Charter is highly probative of several of the Breakthrough factors; however, it is not enough to definitively establish that Seneca Holdings shares tribal sovereign immunity with the Seneca Nation of Indians. As such, more discovery is required to appropriately consider the issue. Consequently, at this juncture, Seneca Holdings purported tribal sovereign immunity does not render PSI’s proposed amendments futile.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Suit against Tribal Insurers

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Allied World Assurance Company:

CA9 unpublished memorandum

Opening Brief

Allied Answer Brief

York Answer Brief

Reply Brief

NYTs: “A Heated Linguistic Debate: What Makes ‘Redskins’ a Slur?”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

I like Sherman Alexie’s take on the Daily Show here. In short, who ever says “Great job, redskin” in a good way?

Update in Massive Suit against Plain Green, Owned by Chippewa Cree at Rocky Boy’s

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are selected materials in Gringras v Rosette (D. Vt.):

66 Plain Green Motion to Dismiss or Compel

85 Response

92 Plain Green Reply

122 DCT Order

Northern Arapaho Tribes Sues Interior to Compel 638 Tribal Court Contract

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. United States Department of the Interior (D. Mont.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages brought against the United States Department of the Interior (“Department”); its Secretary; and Regional Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) for violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”) and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Northern Arapaho Tribe (“NAT” or “Tribe”) submitted to the BIA a contract proposal for judicial services and requested technical assistance, consultation and a waiver of any regulations that the BIA thought could prevent or impede approval. The BIA failed or refused to provide technical assistance, consultation, or the requested waiver and declined the proposal. These failures and the declination violate the ISDEAA and applicable regulations. The Tribe is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, plus interest, pursuant to the ISDEAA.

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Sues over Michigan Sales & Use and Tobacco Taxes

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. Khouri (W.D. Mich.):

Complaint

Nooksack Disenrollment/Disbarment Update

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are new pleadings filed in Galanda v. Bernard (Nooksack Ct. App.):

Galanda v. Bernard Pro Se Petitioners’ Appellate Motion for Show Cause Re Contempt

Galanda v. Bernard Declaration of Ryan Dreveskracht In Support of Pro Se Petitioners’ Appellate Motion for Show Cause Re Contempt

Nooksack Tribal Court Letter to Galanda Broadman Lawyers Refusing Pro Se Appearance

Here is a new filing in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Ct. App.):

Belmont (Roberts) v. Kelly Second Declaration of Michelle Roberts In Support of Appellate Writ of Mandamus

Clickhole: “7 Things All Law School Students Know To Be True”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

My favorite:

Defense is shirts. Prosecution is skins: You only have to be laughed out of one mock trial to remember this.

Federal Court Rules in Favor of Cheyenne & Araphoe Tribes in Bank Account/Leadership Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Cheyenne & Araphoe Tribes v. Harjo (W.D. Okla.):

26 Harjo Rule 19 Motion

26-8 IBIA Decision

27 Tribes Response to 26

29 Reply in Support of 26

35 Tribes Motion for Partial Summary J

36 Harjo Response to 35

36-4 C&A SCT Order re IBIA Decision

39 Reply in Support of 35

41 DCT Order Denying Rule 19 Motion

42 DCT Order Granting 35

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Theft from a Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Tadios.

The court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s inclusion in its loss calculation at sentencing the estimated salary paid to the defendant, the CEO of a federally-funded health care clinic located on the Chippewa Cree’s Rocky Boy Reservation, for time she spent visiting her husband when she claimed to be traveling on business. The defendant was convicted for converting federal funds for personal use, using federal funds for personal benefit, and misapplying clinic funds. The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that because she was an exempt employee, the Chippewa Cree suffered no loss in paying her full salary for when she was visiting her husband instead of performing clinic duties. The panel held that including in the loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 the estimated value of the time the defendant should have reported as annual leave was not clear error. The panel addressed the defendant’s remaining arguments concerning her conviction and sentencing in a memorandum disposition

The Ninth Circuit’s unpublished memorandum decision on jurisdiction is here.

An excerpt:

Tadios first argues that the federal courts lack jurisdiction because Tadios is an Indian and the acts took place on tribal land. We review criminal jurisdiction de novo. United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486, 497 (9th Cir. 1994). Tadios’s argument fails in light of more than a century of jurisprudence concluding that generally applicable provisions of the Federal Criminal Code govern prosecutions of crimes committed by Indians in Indian territory. See, e.g., United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 384-85 (1886) (finding that federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on Indian territory).