Here, settling a complaint against CEDA for breach of contract and wrongful termination.
Thanks to Marc Benjamin at the Fresno Bee.
Commentary from MF: This is a till-tap case, where a state court orders a sheriff to collect on a judgment by literally taking money from the till. Does anyone know if there has been a case like this involving tribes before?
Here.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has demonstrated that, during the period from February 22, 1974, to September 30, 1992, defendant breached its fiduciary duties to the Nation by mismanaging the Nation’s trust assets and other funds. Plaintiff has established all the traditional elements for recovery of damages on those breach claims. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that, for the period in question, plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of $21,017,491.99 – $21,015,651.45 on its underinvestment claim and $1,840.54 for its deposit lag claim. Plaintiff is entitled to recover nothing on its negative interest claim, which claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On or before June 17, 2013, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating how this case should proceed. Said report shall also discuss whether any form of additional relief is currently required under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2).63
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Order list here.
Our previous coverage here.
Relevant documents:
Here.
The agreement calls for the Senecas to give about $340 million in back payments to the state and local governments, but they will not have to pay about $209 million that was also owed. The deal also allows the Senecas to retain its gambling exclusivity in western New York, stretching through Rochester and the western portion of the Finger Lakes. The settlement will not need legislative approval.
Here and here. Excellent articles.
From Part 3:
In 2010, after Brown had been served notice of termination and adoption, his original lawyer, Lesley Sasser, asked a Charleston, South Carolina–based family court attorney named Shannon Jones to join Brown’s legal team. Although Jones is an expert in interstate custody disputes under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, she did not expect to become involved in an adoption struggle over an Indian child from Oklahoma.
“Lesley came to my office one day and said, ‘I’ve got this case that’s coming up for trial, and it could be kind of complex,’ ” said Jones, laughing at the understatement. “She said it involved the Indian Child Welfare Act. Honestly, at first I didn’t even know what it was. I’d never heard of it.”
***
Judge Deborah Malphrus, who heard arguments in South Carolina’s Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, issued a verbal courtroom ruling in favor of Brown on November 25, 2011. Soon, according to multiple sources in South Carolina, she was “inappropriately contacted” by numerous parties who asked her outright to change her written ruling in favor of the Capobiancos. Far from listening to their requests, Malphrus subsequently issued a 25-page ruling that reiterated the family court findings and transferred custody to Brown.
Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/04/fight-baby-veronica-part-3-149704
From the NY Times.
Nor was Justice Kennedy’s brief quotation from “Actual Innocence” especially punctilious. Here is how the justice rendered it, including his brackets and ellipses: “[P]rompt [DNA] testing … would speed up apprehension of criminals before they commit additional crimes, and prevent the grotesque detention of … innocent people.”
Those first three dots covered a lot of ground. They took the place of more than six sentences and suggested a different point than the one the authors were making. The original passage concerned evidence collected at crime scenes, not from people who might be connected to it.
“What we were saying had nothing to do with post-arrest testing of suspects,” said Jim Dwyer, a co-author of the book who is now a columnist for The New York Times. “We were arguing that all evidence should be tested, whether or not a suspect had been charged.”
Mr. Neufeld agreed. “The ‘prompt testing’ is referring to something completely different than the latter phrase,” he said. “Barry, Jim and I never endorsed arrestee databases.”
The omission of two words with the second set of dots is easier to understand. The authors had written that testing could prevent “the grotesque detention of thousands of innocent people.” Justice Kennedy apparently did not want to endorse the possibility that the criminal justice system had such widespread shortcomings. (The Innocence Project, which is affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, says that more than 300 prisoners have been exonerated using DNA.)
Opinion here.
The Seneca Nation of Indians administers its own healthcare system through a self-determination contract with the Indian Health Service under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The Nation submitted a contract amendment to the Indian Health Service to adjust the number of persons to be serviced under the contract and, as a result, to increase the funding provided to the Nation for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. IHS did not respond to the proposal within the 90 days as required by statute, and the Nation contends that its proposed amendment automatically became part of its contract with IHS upon the lack of a timely response. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, of which IHS is a constituent part, disagrees. The parties have briefed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the matter is ripe for decision. For the reasons set forth below, the Nation’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.
***
The Nation’s argument is forceful in its simplicity, in its support in the undisputed evidence, and in its grounding in the unambiguous terms of the Contract, the statute, and the regulations. “In the April 29 Proposal Letter, the Nation proposed in plain terms to amend the Nation’s FY 2010 Agreement to increase funding by $3,774,392, plus interest . . . [and i]n the same letter, the Nation . . . proposed an identical amendment to the Nation’s FY 2011 Agreement.” Pl. MSJ 9–10. “The IHS Nashville Office received the April 29 Proposal Letter . . . on May 2, 2011 . . . [but t]he ninety (90) day period expired before August 3, 2011, without any response during that time by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department to the Nation’s proposed amendments other than a May 4, 2011 e-mail acknowledging that ‘[w]e are in receipt of your [April 29 Proposal Letter] and have made assignments to provide you with a response as soon as possible.’” Id. at 10 (quoting E-mail Chain at 6). According to the Nation, its proposals thus automatically became part of the Contract under 25 U.S.C. § 450f(a)(2) and 25 C.F.R. § 900.18
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.