Federal Suit against MHA Nation-Affiliated Lending Business Stayed Pending Fourth Circuit Decision in Hengle v. Treppa

Here are the materials in Manago v. Cane Bay Partners VII LLLP (D. Md.):

40 Amended Complaint

73-1 Motion to Stay

76 Opposition

82 DCT Order Granting Motion for Stay

The briefs in Hengle v. Treppa are here.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Claims against Chickasaw Nation Business

Here is the unpublished opinion in Bacy v. Chickasaw Nation Industries Inc.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court opinion here:

40 DCT Order

Federal Court in Oregon Declines to Dismiss Suit against Big Picture Loans-Affiliated Individual

Here are the materials so far in Smith v. Martorello (D. Or.):

100 Amended Complaint

106 Motion to Dismiss

120 Opposition

123 Reply

146 Magistrate Report

148 Objections

149 Rule 19 Motion

150 Response to 148

152 Response to 149

155 Reply in Support of 149

156 DCT Order

North Dakota SCT Confirms Tribal Immunity Cloaks Tribal Business

Here are the materials in State of North Dakota by and through Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Cherokee Services Corp.:

2021ND36 — Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply

Federal Court Allows Some Tobacco Business Claims in Dispute between Sac and Fox, Seneca, and Susanville Rancheria Companies

Here are the materials so far in Allegheny Capital Enterprises LLC v. Cox (W.D. N.Y.):

8 Amended Complaint

17-8 Motion to Dismiss

17-5 Arbitration Decision

21 Response

22 Reply

23 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This is a diversity action commenced by a corporate entity affiliated with the Sac and Fox of Oklahoma Tribe (doing business in the Seneca Nation in New York) and a partnership doing business in the Seneca Nation. They claim that Defendants, officers of affiliated corporations of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (a Native tribe in California, also referred to as “SIR”), made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs that led to Plaintiffs entering into the tobacco manufacturing and distribution contracts with one of the affiliated corporations. Defendants represented that they had the authority to waive tribal sovereign immunity for the affiliate corporation and that the affiliate in fact waived that immunity. After an alleged breach of these contracts, Plaintiffs lodged claims against one of the affiliate corporations, but the corporation successfully asserted that it did not waive its tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs then commenced this action against the officers; they did not name the corporation as a Defendant.

Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) the Amended Complaint on sovereign immunity, jurisdictional, and pleading grounds. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part (dismissing claims against Defendants Stacy Dixon and Jolene Robles for lack of personal jurisdiction), denied in part (denying other grounds asserted). After resolution of this motion, Plaintiffs retain claims against Defendant Gretchen Cox.

Second Circuit Rejects Six Nations GRE Challenge to Connecticut’s Tobacco Statute

Here are the materials in Grand River Six Nations Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton:

CA2 Opinion

Six Nations Grand River Enterprises Brief

Connecticut Brief

Reply

Wakpamni Lake Corp. Seeks Relief from Default Judgment in TED Bonds Fraud Case

Here is the pleading from Michelin Retirement Plan v. Dilworth Paxon LLP (D.S.C.):

608 WLCC Rule 60 Motion

608-1 Lone Hill Declaration

608-15 Victim Impact Statement

608-16 Raynes Declaration

An excerpt from the motion:

In or about the fall of 2017, a man named Quattlebaum contacted WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community President Lone Hill on three separate occasions. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) President Lone Hill understood that Mr. Quattlebaum was Judge Quattlebaum, then a United States District Judge for this Court.1 (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) Mr. Quattlebaum asked President Lone Hill about the financial state of WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community and about the subject matter of the lawsuit. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27.) Based on the information received, Mr. Quattlebaum deduced that WLCC and the Wakpamni Lake Community were destitute. (Id.) President Lone Hill understood from her conversations with Mr. Quattlebaum that he understood and appreciated their innocent and impoverished position. President Lone Hill further understood and believed that Mr. Quattlebaum—as a judge of this Court—indicated to her that no further action was needed with respect to this case.

Prior post in this case here.

Connecticut SCT Briefs in Great Plains Lending LLC v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Banking

Here:

Great Plains Brief

State Brief

Great Plains Reply

State Reply

Prior post here.