Most Claims Dismissed in Quapaw Tribe v. US Trust Breach Action

Here are the materials in Quapaw Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order

US Motion to Dismiss

Quapaw Response

US Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiff, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, is a federally recognized Indian nation. The Quapaw Tribe commenced this action on September 11, 2012 by filing a complaint for money damages arising from Defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary and trust obligations owed to the Quapaw Tribe. The complaint contains three causes of action.

On November 13, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal of the complaint, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that Plaintiff had failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Defendant requested that the Court order Plaintiff to file a more definite statement of its claims. Defendant excepted from its motion Plaintiff’s claims for annuity payments under the Treaty of 1833 and leasing claims for the Quapaw Industrial Park. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion on December 28, 2012, and Defendant filed a reply on January 11, 2013. The Court heard oral argument on June 4, 2013.

Under Rule 8 of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), a pleading must include “a short and plain statement” of the basis for jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s claims, as well as a demand for the relief sought. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s complaint generally meets the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8, and therefore, Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is denied. However, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action, as they are barred by the statute of limitations.

Some Claims against US Dismissed in Quapaw Tribal Members Trust Breach Action

Here are the materials in Goodeagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order

US Partial Motion to Dismiss

Goodeagle Response

US Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs in this case are Grace M. Goodeagle, Thomas Charles Bear, Edwina Faye Busby, Phyllis Romick Kerrick, Jean Ann Lambert, Florence Whitecrow Mathews, A rdi na Revard Moore, Tamara Anne Romick Parker, and Fran Wood, all of whom are enrolled members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 28, 2012 by filing a complaint for money damages arising from Defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary and trust obligations owed to the Quapaw Tribe and its members. The complaint contains eight causes of action.

On August 27, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal of the complaint, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that Plaintiffs had failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Defendant requested that the Court order Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement of their claims. Defendant limited its motion to the third, fifth, sixth, and eighth causes of action, and did not challenge the first, second, fourth, and seventh causes of action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion on November 26, 2012, and Defendant filed a reply on December 23, 2012. The Court heard oral argument on June 4, 2013.

For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ complaint generally meets the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) to show “a short and plain statement” of the basis for jurisdiction and Plaintiffs’ claims, as well as a demand for the relief sought. Thus, the Court denies Defendant’s request for Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement of their claims as to the third cause of action. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to the extent the third cause of action is meant to apply to more than losses under actual leases. That cause of action is not timely as to “hypothetical leases” where town lots might have been leased but were not. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action, as the consequential harm to Plaintiffs’ land from the mining activities does not constitute a continuing trespass, and therefore the claim is untimely. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action alleges mismanagement of trust assets, and also is untimely. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action is not ripe for adjudication, and therefore dismisses it without prejudice.

Split South Carolina SCT Order Immediate Transfer of Custody of Baby Veronica

Here (South Carolina SCt Opinion in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl PDF).

Cherokee Nation release.

News coverage here.

SCOTUSblog coverage here.

NPR coverage here.

Slate coverage here.

Lannan Foundation v. Gingold et al. — Fight over Cobell Settlement Attorney Fees

Here is the news coverage from BLT, which includes this link to the complaint.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Recognizes Authority of Tribal Officers Cross-Deputized under State Law to Enforce State Law Off-Reservation

Here is the summary opinion in State v. Ferguson:

2013-07-15 Summary Opinion-1

An excerpt:

“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, by statute or by this Code.”  12 O.S.2011, § 2402. The appeal record in this case shows that Salkil and Murphy are CLEET certified deputies in Ottawa County. Nothing in the constitution or laws of this  State provides that evidence obtained by deputies is inadmissible. Id. Even if they had  been outside their jurisdiction, information from and observations made by Salkil and Murphy may be used in establishing probable cause to issue a search warrant. See Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ~ 12, 932 P.2d 1136, 1140. Judges Culver and Maxey erred by sustaining the Appellees’ motions to suppress relevant evidence in these cases.

Update in Desert Water Agency v. Bureau of Indian Affairs — Suit over BIA Leasing Regulations

Here are the new materials:

12-3 Mot Dismiss – Proposed Order 6-7-2013

12-1 Mot Dismiss – Memo ISO Mot Dismiss 6-7-2013

12-2 Mot Dismiss – Decl Elizabeth Appel ISO Mot Dismiss 6-7-2013

DESERT WATER AGENCY_ FOIA Response fm US Dept. of the Interior

TM10_-_Kenny_Wilson_REDACTED

Agua_Caliente

— EO 13175

— 318 DM 5

Prior post here.

Tohono O’odham Nation Seeks More than $4Million in Attorney Fees from State of Arizona

Here is the motion in State of Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):

TON Motion for Attorney Fees

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348 reads:

A. In addition to any costs that are awarded as prescribed by statute, a court shall award fees and other expenses to any party other than this state or a city, town or county that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in any of the following:

1. A civil action brought by the state or a city, town or county against the party.

Prior post here. H/T here.

 

New Study on Impact of Public Law 280 on Umatilla Reservation (+ 160 Other Reservations)

Sarah N. Cline’s study, “Sovereignty Under Arrest? Public Law 280 and its Discontents” is available here (PDF).

The abstract:

Law enforcement in Indian Country has been characterized as a “maze of injustice”—one in which offenders too easily escape and victims are too easily lost (Amnesty International, 2007). Tribal, state, and federal governments have recently sought to amend this through the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) in 2010 and the expansion of cross-deputization agreements. Positioning itself amid these developments, this study seeks to determine the administrative impact of Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), which creates a concurrent jurisdictional regime between states and tribes. Taking a mixed-methodological approach, the law’s effect on the sovereignty and resource capacity of tribal justice systems is first analyzed using existing data for 162 American Indian reservations. Through a series of logistic regressions, hypotheses are tested to determine whether a statistically significant difference emerges between policy treatments under P.L. 280. This quantitative analysis is then grounded in a case study of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, who are unique for their 1981 retrocession of criminal jurisdiction in the mandatory P.L. 280 state of Oregon. Both content analysis of archival records and semi-structured interviews with tribal, state, and federal public officials shed light on experiences of the criminal justice system before, during, and after P.L. 280. This research contributes to the overarching objectives of TLOA, which seek to locate best practices and administrative models in reducing crime and victimization on reservations.

Sixth Circuit Amicus Briefs in Support of Little River Band Ottawa in Dispute with NLRB

Here:

2013 Amicus Brief of Chickasaw Nation and Ute Mountain Tribe

2013-07-15 Multi-Tribe Amicus Group Brief

2013-07-16 American Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief

2013-07-15 NCAI AMICUS BRIEF

LRB’s brief is here.

Supreme Court Issues Call for Response in Onondaga Land Claims Cert Petition

Here is the docket sheet. The request is dated July 3, 2013. The petition is scheduled for the September 30 “long Conference.” New York has asked for additional time, until September 3, to respond.

Here is the cert petition.