Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher – Page 477

Nez Perce Tribe Seeks Chief Judge

April 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Nez Perce Tribe Department of Law & Justice is recruiting for: CHIEF JUDGE HR-15-122 This position requires a wide range of legal, administrative, management and budgetary skills. The Chief Judge presides over the Tribal Court, and hears, or assigns to other Tribal Court Associate and Pro-Tem judges, all cases heard in the Tribal Court. The Chief Judge handles all phases of civil and criminal litigation, drafts orders, opinions, memoranda and other legal documents, and fulfills all other duties required of the Chief Judge to assure an effective and fair Tribal Court. In addition, the Chief Judge supervises Associate Judges, and the Court Administrator/Chief Clerk. Requires three (3) years’ experience as a judge, tribal court judicial experience preferred. More than five (5) years of tribal court Chief Judge experience and evidence of success in court administration, court staff supervision and court budget development is preferred. Applicants must demonstrate that they have a thorough knowledge of Indian law, the Nez Perce Tribal Code, and applicable federal law, including but not limited to the Tribal Law and Order Act and Violence Against Women Act. Must have a Juris Doctorate from an accredited law school and must be a member in good standing of a state bar. Please list contact information of at least four (4) work-related references, two of whom must be judges. Pre-employment drug testing required. Applicant must possess a valid driver’s license with the ability to be insured under the Tribe’s policy. This position closes open until filled. (Grade 28)

To apply: Recruitments for Entry Level Positions (Grade 15 and below) will require a completed Tribal application only. Recruitments for Professional Positions (Grade 16 and above) will require a completed Tribal application and resume. Please submit one application per position:

Nez Perce Tribe Human Resources Office
ATTN: Job Name & No.
P.O. Box 365
Lapwai, Idaho, 83540

Phone (208) 843-7332 Fax (208) 843-7414 LATE OR INCOMPLETE APPLICATION PACKETS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.
Tribal Preference applies. www.nezperce.org

Ho-Chunk Nation Tribal Court Seeks Two-Year Law Clerk/Staff Attorney

April 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is a wonderful experience for new law grads. Highly recommended.

Here.

Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Sprint’s Refusal to Pay Fees at Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

April 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Court (D. S.D.):

178 Sprint Motion for Partial Summary J

192 Opposition to 178

200 Reply in Support of 178

243 DCT Order Denying Motion for Summary J

Prior post in this case here.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Suit Brought against Utility in Blackfeet Tribal Court

April 28, 2015April 29, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Glacier Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Gervais (D. Mont.):

An excerpt:

The Court at this juncture simply must determine whether jurisdiction is “plainly” lacking. The standard set forth in Grand Canyon Skywalk applies to this case irrespective ofthe ambiguous nature of the land ownership. Glacier Electric’s actions, at the minimum, amount to an intrusion on the Blackfeet Tribe’s right to exclude. Glacier Electric’s actions could be subject to the Blackfeet Tribe’s right to regulate and adjudicate non-members based on interference with its right to exclude.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Suit Brought against Pharmaceutical Company in Blackfeet Tribal Court

April 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Takeda Pharmaceuticals America v. Connelly (D. Mont.):

An excerpt:

The Court at this juncture simply must determine whether Blackfeet Tribal Court “plainly” lacks jurisdiction. The IHS facility sits on leased Indian land. This fact, by itself, amounts to a colorable claim of jurisdiction. The Blackfeet Tribal Court maintains a colorable claim of jurisdiction based on the alleged conduct on tribal trust land. This determination precludes analysis at this point as to whether either Montana exception provides a colorable basis for Blackfeet Tribal Court jurisdiction. Admiral Ins. Co. v. Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Ct., 2012 WL 1144331 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

Washington SCT Briefs in Challenge to Tribal-State Tax Agreements

April 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the briefs in Automotive United Trades Organization v. State of Washington:

AUTO Brief

State Brief

AUTO Reply

Washington Policy Amicus

State Response to Policy Amicus

Tribal Amicus Brief

This case reached the Washington Supreme Court previously on a procedural issue, here.

Final Disposition in Kenneth Blatt-St. Marks’ Whistleblower Case

April 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is a Press Release and the 23-page Final Disposition in the Matter of U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ARRA Funds – Case No. OI-CO-13-0243-I (St. Marks). The December 19, 2014 Determination is also included.

St Marks Final Disposition 4 24 2015

BSM Whistleblower Matter Dec. 19, 2014

And the presser:

THE CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBAL BUSINESS COMMITTEE’S CHARGES AGAINST ST. MARKS RULED A PRETEXT, AND IT IS ORDERED TO ABATE ITS REPRISALS

On April 24, 2015, the United States Department of Interior issued a 23-page Final Disposition in the Matter of U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General Report of Investigation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ARRA Funds – Case No. OI-CO-13-0243-I (St. Marks). In that Final Disposition, the Department confirmed its December 19, 2014 initial determiation that the Chippewa Cree Tribe engaged in a prohibited reprisal against St. Marks when he was removed from the position of Chairman of the Tribe’s Business Committee in March 2013. It said “the record [wa]s replete with evidence that the Tribe was well aware of St. Marks’ communications to the IG and USBR a few short months before his removal.” It went on to state that the instant situation was rife with threats and intimidation against individuals in the tribal community, including St. Marks, by those ultimately shown to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing. “Indeed, [the Tribe’s] continued pursuit of all seven charges despite evidence either challenging or failing to support their veracity calls into question the Business Committee’s credibility and motive and renders the charges as pretext,” it said.

Regarding allegations of fraud and misuse of federal funds, the Department attached a December 4, 2014 letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney Carl Rostad advising the Tribe’s counsel that the U.S. Department of Agriculture IG had conducted an inquiry into allegations against St. Marks with respect to the Sewer Lagoon wastewater project, but that inquiry “was closed after finding no credible evidence for further investigation.” Rostad further stated that with respect to allegations of bribery that may have affected “the fresh-water pipeline project” allegations that had been the “focus of several investigations” and “a review of thousands of financial records produced no information that St. Marks transferred funds to tribal officials.” It also stated that “when the agent assigned to the whistleblower case attempted to interview tribal officials about the allegations they all refused to be interviewed.” Regarding allegations that St. Marks’ company had performed inadequate or substandard work on the Tibre Project, the Department attached documentation that there was no credible basis for those claims either. The Final Disposition also documented other instances where the Department had contacted the Tribe’s counsel for supporting information but received the run around.

The Final Determation ordered the Tribe to stop any and all reprisals against St. Marks, awarded him backpay, front pay for the remainder of his term, travel costs, and attorneys fees and costs.
Addressing the Final Determation St. Marks said:

I am happy my name is cleared but it is unfortunate it took so long. Thankfully, the tribal members and the Havre community continued to believe in me despite such an awful smear campaign. Nevertheless, there is still more that the Department needs to do. The Final Determination expressly stated it was concerned for “the welfare of the CCT government and its members” but as a trustee, it hasn’t addressed that whatsoever. We have non-elected persons purporting to act as the Tribe’s Business Committee, while the elected Business Committee members can’t get sworn in. Those non-elected members are using public funds to go after tribal members, even jailing one of our members most recently. This is way out of hand, and yet the United States has continued its government-to-government relationship with these non-elected members. That isn’t right.

A copy of the Final Determination is attached hereto.

For more information on the contents of this press release, please contact Martha L. King of Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP at: (303) 673-9600.

Federal Circuit to Decide En Banc if Lanham Act § 2(a) Banning “Disparaging” Marks is Constitutional

April 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in In re Tam:

CAFED Panel Opinion

Sue Sponte Hearing En Banc Order

Panel materials:

Tam Opening Brief

USPTO Brief

Tam Reply

SCOTUS Denies Cert in Western Sky v. Jackson

April 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order list.

Cert stage briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Contract Breach Complaint: Ceridian HCM Inc. v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

April 27, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ceridian HCM, Inc. v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

5 DCT Order to Show Cause

An excerpt:

In the Complaint, Ceridian HCM alleged that it “is a Delaware corporation with its principal office” in Minnesota; that Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians “is a federally recognized Indian tribe” that has its principal office in California; that Chumash Casino Resort Enterprise “is an unincorporated business enterprise wholly owned by” Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians; and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It appears that jurisdiction under § 1332 does not exist because “Indian tribes are neither foreign states nor citizens of any state.” Gaming World Int’l, Ltd. v. White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians, 317 F.3d 840, 847 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017, 1020-21 (8th Cir. 2007);Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enters., Inc., 487 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.2 (8th Cir. 2007).

The Court grants Ceridian HCM an opportunity to submit a memorandum of law that explains why this action should not be dismissed for lack for subject-matter jurisdiction. SeeHertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006) (“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” (citation omitted)). Ceridian HCM shall file the memorandum within seven days of the date of this Order.