Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This summer the Justice Department intervened for the first time in its history in a federal district court case in South Dakota, concluding that the state has violated the rights of Native American parents.

Two of the state’s largest tribes argued that the state has removed children in hearings where parents were rarely allowed to speak and often lasted less than 60 seconds. The children were then placed indefinitely in largely white foster homes.

Stephen Pevar, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit along with the Oglala Sioux and Rosebud Sioux tribes, called the hearings “kangaroo courts.”

“There was nothing — nothing — that any of the parents did or could have done,” Pevar said. “It was a predetermined outcome in every one of these cases.”

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Lee v. Cleve Her Many Horses

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Gatzaros v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Cert Petition

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Gatzaros Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Majority Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit conflicts with the decisions of this Supreme Court and other Circuit Courts of Appeals, thereby changing the well-established rules of contract construction which require specific contract provisions govern over general provisions to resolve disputes caused by two conflicting contract provisions?

2. Whether the Majority Opinion is in direct conflict with the decisions of this Supreme Court, other Circuit Courts of Appeals and the fundamental rules of contract construction which require the application of extrinsic evidence when there is an ambiguity caused by conflicting contractual language?

3. Whether the Majority Opinion, in upholding the judicial rewriting of paragraph 8 of the Guaranty, is in direct conflict with the decisions of this Supreme Court and the other Circuit Courts of Appeals which have held the courts must give effect to contracts as written by the parties, and cannot rewrite them?

4. Whether the Majority’s failure to find the Respondents waived their contract defenses contradicts established case law in the other Circuit Courts of Appeals that a guaranty is a contract which must be enforced as written?

5. Whether the Majority’s Opinion conflicts with the well-settled standard for reviewing a Motion to Dismiss under Fed.Civ. R. 12(b)(6) when it failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to the Petitioners or accept their well-pled allegations?

Lower court materials here.

California Valley Miwok Tribe Again Fails at Recovering Foreclosed Land

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Burley v. OneWest Band FSB (E.D. Cal.):

22 OneWest Motion to Dismiss

23 Opposition

24 Reply

31 DCT Order granting Motion to dismiss

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs Silvia Burley and the California Valley Miwok Tribe (“Miwok Tribe”) brought this action against defendants OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), and Meridian Foreclosure Service (“Meridian”) to recover title over land and damages in connection with the alleged wrongful foreclosure and sale of the plaintiffs’ real property. On August 26, 2014, this court issued an order (“Aug. 26, 2014 Order”) dismissing plaintiffs’ case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and giving plaintiffs’ twenty days to file an amended complaint. (Docket No. 17.) Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691, et seq., the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., and several state law claims essentially repeated from their original Complaint. (Docket No. 18.)

Prior proceedings are posted here.

John Borrows on Indigenous Legal Traditions

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “John Borrows on indigenous legal traditions: ‘We need to explore how we can take that law and carve it in new and beautiful ways.’”

Colorado River Indian Tribes Sue Interior over Modified Blythe Solar Power Project

December 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Dept. of Interior (C.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This complaint challenges the actions of Defendants U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and their officials (collectively, “BLM” or “Defendants”) in approving the Modified Blythe Solar Power Project (“Blythe II” or “Project”), a utility-scale solar energy generation facility slated for development on federal land northwest of Blythe, California. As set forth below, this Court has jurisdiction over this action because it presents questions of federal law, involves federal defendants, and involves a federally recognized Indian tribe as plaintiff in a suit against federal defendants. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361, 1362.

The Project site is located within the ancestral homelands of the members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (“CRIT” or “Tribes”), whose reservation begins just a few miles northeast of the site. The religion and culture of CRIT’s members are strongly connected to the physical environment of the area, including the ancient trails, petroglyphs, grindstones, hammerstones, and other cultural resources known to exist there. The removal or destruction of these artifacts and the development of the Project as planned will cause CRIT, its government, and its members irreparable harm.