Here is “The Current State of Arbitration Clauses Within Article 8 Native American Tribal Contracts: An Examination of Binding Arbitration Contracts in Native American Payday Lending,” published in Arbitration Brief.
economic development
NYTs Profile of Alleged Corruption at MHA Nation
Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Suit against Penobscot Corporation
Here are the materials in Rassi v. Federal Program Intergrators LLC (D. Me.):
An excerpt:
I conclude that the sovereign immunity of the Penobscot Indian Nation does extend to FPI, but that FPI waived its immunity by adopting the “sue and be sued clause” in § 12.07 of its Operating Agreement, as required by 13 C.F.R. § 124.109(c)(1) in order for FPI to participate I the § 8(a) program. Nevertheless, I conclude that the tribal exhaustion doctrine applies to this case. The case is ORDERED STAYED with regard to FPI pending a determination by the tribal court as to its jurisdiction, and if necessary, an adjudication of the case on its merits. After the tribal court has ruled on the issue of its jurisdiction, and, if necessary, adjudicated the case on the merits, either party may return to this court and request that the stay be lifted. It is further ORDERED that all claims against PINE are DISMISSED, without prejudice.
New York Court of Appeals Finds Seneca-Owned Company Not Cloaked with Tribal Immunity
Here is the opinion in Sue/Perior Concrete and Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corp.
An excerpt:
Defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (Lewiston Golf) is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of the Seneca Nation of Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe. We are asked to decide whether that corporation is protected from suit by the Seneca Nation’s sovereign immunity. Applying the factors set out in Matter of Ransom v St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Community Fund (86 NY2d 553 [1995]), we hold that it is not.
Briefs and other materials here:
A102214-196-Oral-Argument-Transcript
ASuePeriorConcretevLewiston-amic-SenecaNation-amicbrf
ASuePeriorvLewiston-app-Lewiston-brf
ASuePeriorvLewiston-app-Lewiston-Rec
ASuePeriorvLewiston-app-Lewiston-replybrf
ASuePeriorvLewiston-res-SuePerior-brf
ASuePeriorvLewiston-res-SuePerior-BrfRspAmic
Lower court materials here. My commentary on the appellate division’s reasoning applies here as well.
New Scholarship Condemning the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for Selling Out Indian Nations
Ryan D. Dreveskracht has posted his new paper, “Forfeiting Federalism: The Faustian Pact with Big Tobacco,” (PDF) just published in the Richmond Journal of Law and Public Interest.
Here is the abstract:
This article discusses the effects of the largest legal settlement in United States history: the so-called Master Settlement Agreement, or “MSA.” Part I discusses the settlement generally, and its intended effect on the U.S. tobacco market. Parts II through IV discuss the unintended consequences of the settlement. Specifically, Part II considers how states got into their current disarray, and how a perceived state windfall of billions of dollars ended up putting states on what by all accounts now appears to be very real risk of insolvency. Part III examines how the major tobacco companies are using the states’ dire financial condition to stifle tribal sovereignty and Indian industry. Part IV analyzes the federal government’s role in similar oppressive tactics. The concluding section suggests lessons that might be learned from the MSA.
Briefs in NEPA Challenge to Interior Drilling Approvals re: Osage Mineral Estate
Here are selected materials so far in Donelson v. United States (N.D. Okla.):
162 Donelson Response to B&G Motion to Dismiss
163 Donelson Response to Devon Motion to Dismiss
166 Donelson Response to US Motion to Dismiss
Update (2/28/17):
Federal Court Materials (So Far) in Suit against Seminole Tribe’s Section 17 Corporation
Here are the materials in Lujen Brands LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc. (S.D. Fla.):
DCT paperless order:
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc., Mike Ulizio, and Chris Osceola’s (STOFI Defendants) 14 Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the STOFI Defendants’ 31 Motion for Scheduling Conference; and GRANTING Plaintiff’s 32 Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures. On May 2, 2014, the STOFI Defendants filed a 14 Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that they are immune from suit by virtue of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. In its 15 Response, Plaintiff requested jurisdictional discovery. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days to conduct jurisdictional discovery narrowly tailored to the subject-matter jurisdiction issue implicated by the STOFI Defendants’ 14 Motion to Dismiss. Discovery may not stray to merits issues. The Parties are directed to confer and cooperate in good faith in determining the logistics of the discovery. After the forty-five (45) day jurisdictional discovery period, the STOFI Defendants may, if they choose, refile their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all parties shall proceed to merits discovery at the conclusion of the forty-five (45) day jurisdictional discovery period. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 8/22/2014. (jn) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
38 STOFI Motion for Reconsideration
DCT Order:
ORDER GRANTING Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc. (STOFI), Mike Ulizio, and Chris Osceola’s (STOFI Defendants) 38 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 22, 2014 Paperless Order. In their Motion, the STOFI Defendants argue that the Court’s August 22, 2014 Order (D.E. 33) implies that if they were to re-file their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity grounds at the close of jurisdictional discovery, they would nevertheless have to participate in merits discovery before the Court issued a ruling on the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See D.E. 38 at 2). The STOFI Defendants further argue that if the Court were to order them to engage in merits discovery prior to resolution of the issue of sovereign immunity, the Court would be infringing on their tribal sovereign immunity and that such an order would constitute error. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts no argument on this issue in its Response. (See D.E. 46). The Court is permitted to resolve the issue of sovereign immunity before allowing discovery. See Caraballo-Sandoval v. Honsted, 35 F.3d 521, 524 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, at the close of jurisdictional discovery, should the STOFI Defendants re-file their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity grounds, the Court will stay this action as to the STOFI Defendants pending the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.
The STOFI Defendants also argue in their Motion that the Court should more precisely define the boundaries of jurisdictional discovery. In its August 22, 2014 Order, the Court stated that “jurisdictional discovery [shall be] narrowly tailored to the subject-matter jurisdiction issue implicated by the STOFI Defendants’ [May 2, 2014] Motion to Dismiss. Discovery may not stray to merits issues.” (D.E. 33). STOFI argues that, because it has sovereign immunity unless it waives such immunity in its Charter or by contract, the only proper jurisdictional discovery against it concerning sovereign immunity goes to waiver, not to whether it is a subordinate economic entity of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. (See D.E. 38 at 8). The Court agrees. In accordance with binding precedent, STOFI is entitled to sovereign immunity unless and until it waives such immunity. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of W. Hollywood, 361 F.2d 517, 520-22 (5th Cir. 1966); see also Inglish Interests, LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc., No. 2:10cv367FtM29DNF, 2011 WL 208289, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2011). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that jurisdictional discovery regarding STOFI is limited to the issue of whether STOFI waived sovereign immunity. Jurisdictional discovery shall not be permitted on the issue of whether STOFI is a subordinate economic entity of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, because, in the Eleventh Circuit, that issue is irrelevant with respect to whether STOFI has sovereign immunity. See Maryland Cas. Co., 361 F.2d at 520-22. Jurisdictional discovery shall be permitted on the issue of whether Ulizio and Osceola are also entitled to sovereign immunity.
It is further ORDERED that the forty-five day jurisdictional discovery period is to begin from the date of this order, as requested by the parties. Accordingly, the parties shall have until and including November 3, 2014, to complete jurisdictional discovery. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety.
Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 9/18/2014. (jn) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
Update in Hualapai Ranch Tribal Court Litigation
Here are additional materials in WD at the Canyon v. Hwal’Bay Ba:J Enterprises Inc. (Hualapai Tribal Court):
Order setting telephonic hearing
Respondents’ Supplementary Brief Disclosure
Plaintiffs’ Disclosure Statement
Prior posts are here and here.
Environmental Groups Challenge Navajo Generating Station Approvals, Too
Here is the petition in National Parks Conservation v. EPA (CA9):
Hopi’s petition is here.
Hopi Tribe v. EPA Ninth Circuit Petition over Navajo Generating Station Approvals
Here:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.