economic development – Turtle Talk

Few Indian reservations have any semblance of a private sector. Consequently, poverty and unemployment are major problems in much of Indian country. While there are many reasons why private enterprise is scarce in Indian country, one of the foremost reasons is businesses do not trust tribal courts. Businesses’ distrust of tribal courts is not unique as outsiders often fear bias in foreign tribunals. Similarly, businesses are often concerned about a court’s capacity to adjudicate complex disputes. Federal diversity jurisdiction was developed to allay fear of bias, and many states have developed business courts to address questions about court capacity. Tribes can overcome these issues by creating an intertribal business court (IBC). Tribes will be free to sculpt the IBC as they see fit. However, the IBC’s intertribal nature will help reduce fears of bias, and an IBC’s focus on business disputes will answer doubts about court capacity. An IBC will also make tribal law more accessible, further increasing confidence in this new tribunal. As businesses gain greater confidence in tribal legal institutions through the IBC, they will be more likely to operate in Indian country. Accordingly, the IBC could help to transform tribal economies.

Idaho Federal Court Dismisses Contract Claim against Coeur d’Alene Tribe

March 7, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Stinson Lumber Co. v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):

1 Complaint.pdf Download

21 Motion to Dismiss.pdf Download

25 Opposition.pdf Download

26 Reply.pdf Download

32 DCT Order.pdf Download

Arizona COA Decision in Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Arizona Department of Revenue

March 2, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

TX 22-0004 Ute Mtn OP.pdf Download

Fourth Circuit Affirms Certification of Class Action against Tribal Payday Lending Operation [that’s kinda what this case is now, kinda]

January 25, 2023Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Williams v. Martorello.

An excerpt:

This class-action proceeding relates to a lending scheme allegedly designed to circumvent state usury laws. Matt Martorello appeals from three district court rulings that (1) reconsidered prior factual findings based on a new finding that Martorello made misrepresentations that substantially impacted the litigation, (2) found that the plaintiffs- appellees—Virginia citizens who took out loans (the “Borrowers”)—did not waive their right to participate in a class-action suit against him, and (3) granted class certification.
In particular, Martorello argues that the district court violated the mandate rule by making factual findings related to the misrepresentations that contradicted this Court’s holding in the prior appeal and then relying on those factual findings when granting class certification. He also contends that the Borrowers entered into enforceable loan agreements with lending entities in which they waived their right to bring class claims against him. In addition, he asserts that common issues do not predominate so as to permit class treatment in this case.
As explained below, we disagree with Martorello. We conclude that the district court did not violate the mandate rule and that the Borrowers did not waive the right to pursue the resolution of their dispute against him in a class-action proceeding. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting class certification because common issues predominate. Accordingly, we affirm the rulings of the district court.

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.