Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher

GRAND RAPIDS, MI, October 28, 2015 – The Michigan Judges Association has announced that Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge Timothy P. Connors is the 2015 winner of the Hilda Gage Judicial Excellence Award. Judge Connors has served on the bench since 1991, serving as chief judge for more than a decade, and also serving by appointment as Judge Pro Tem for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

“Judge Connors has led groundbreaking efforts to strengthen the juvenile court in Washtenaw County and he has been an instrumental collaborator in developing strong state-tribal court relations,” said Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bridget McCormack. “Because of his efforts, Washtenaw’s juvenile court system looks dramatically different in the six short months he has presided over this docket.”

“His impact on child welfare cases transcends the systemic reform efforts he has undertaken,” Justice McCormack said. “On each individual case, he carefully listens to each family’s story. According to the lawyers who regularly appear before him, no matter the result in the particular hearing or case, the parties all leave feeling that they have been heard. The community’s respect for the juvenile court has grown because of his approach.”

This award is named after the late Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Hilda Gage and recognizes Circuit and Court of Appeals judges who have excelled in trial and docket management, legal scholarship, and contributions to the profession and the community. The award honors current or former judges who serve their profession and their communities with integrity, skill, and courage every day.

A biography of Judge Connors is available here.

Fourth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Western Sky Arbitration Provision

October 29, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Parnell v. CashCall Inc.

Materials and briefs here.

Seminole Tribe Good Faith Negotiations Complaint

October 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Shinnecock Land Claims

October 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Shinnecock Indian Nation v. State of New York:

New York Brief

Shinnecock Opening Brief

Shinnecock Reply

Shinnecock v NY Opinion

National NALSA Announces 45th Anniversary and 2015 Executive Board

October 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

45th Anniversary and Board Announcement

More “Karluk Tribal Court”/”Karluk Supreme Court” Nonsense

October 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Remenar v. Office of Dana Scarp (D. D.C.), where the court dismissed a mandamus petition of a non-lawyer seeking admission to practice claiming to be licensed by the fake “Karluk Tribal Court” out of Washington state (not to be confused with the federally recognized Indian nation in Alaska):

Petition for Mandamus Relief

Judge Leon Opinion

And here are materials in Mr. Remenar’s criminal case in Texas:

State of Texas v. Remenar Removal Petition

Remand

We’ve posted materials on the people claiming to represent this fake tribal court and fake tribe here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Interior Solicitor (Tulsa Office) Job Posting

October 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here. From the description:

Represent the Secretary of the Interior in Oklahoma state court for approval proceedings of conveyances and leases of restricted Five Tribes lands; on probate issues involving restricted lands of deceased Five Tribes individuals and involving restricted lands and head right interests of Osage individuals; and on quiet title matters involving restricted Five Tribes lands.

Represent the Secretary on guardianship cases involving individual members of the Five Tribes and the Osage Nation. Review and make recommendations regarding Osage inter vivos trusts and hold hearings related to Osage wills and trusts.

Provide general legal assistance, such as research and writing legal opinions, reviewing legal documents and administrative records, and handling litigation before administrative bodies such as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA), Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA), and Oklahoma state boards, primarily to the Bureau of Indian Affairs on matters involving Indian law, realty and land title, environmental law, FOIA, contracts, employment law, tort claims and other matters as assigned.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in $36.2M Compact Dispute

October 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. State of California.

From the court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Tribal-State Compact governing operation of Class III, or casino-style, gaming on Pauma’s land.

The panel held that the interpretation of a Compact license pool provision in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Cal., 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010), applied, such that the State of California would be deemed to have misrepresented a material fact as to how many gaming licenses were available when negotiating with Pauma to amend its Compact. The panel held that, unlike a change in judicial interpretation of a statute or law, the doctrine of retroactivity does not apply to contracts. Once there has been a final judicial interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision, that is and has always been the correct interpretation from the document’s inception.

The panel held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Pauma’s misrepresentation claim. The panel held that the district court awarded the proper remedy to Pauma by refunding $36.2 million in overpayments, even though the district court mislabeled the remedy as specific performance, rather than rescission and restitution for a voidable contract. The panel held that this equitable remedy fell within the State’s limited waiver of its sovereign immunity in the Compacts, and thus was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact.

Dissenting, Chief District Judge Jarvey wrote that the State did not commit the tort of misrepresentation by interpreting the Compact differently than a later court decision. He also wrote that, under the language of the Compact, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to this claim.

Briefs here.