economic development – Page 45

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

46 Lujen Response

48 STOFI Reply

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

October 29, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

October 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition in National Parks Conservation v. EPA (CA9):

Envtl Groups Petition

Hopi’s petition is here.

Hopi Tribe v. EPA Ninth Circuit Petition over Navajo Generating Station Approvals

October 6, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here:

Petition

Second Circuit Affirms Otoe-Missouria Tribe v. New York Dept. of Financial Regulation

October 1, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion:

13-3769_opn

From the court’s syllabus:

Plaintiffs‐appellants (“plaintiffs”) appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge). Plaintiffs are two Native American tribes, tribal regulatory agencies, and companies owned by the tribes that offered high interest, short‐term loans over the internet. The interest rates on the loans exceeded caps imposed by New York State law. When the New York State Department of Financial Services sought to bar out‐of‐state lenders from extending such loans to New York residents, the plaintiffs sued for a preliminary injunction, claiming that New York’s ban violated the Indian Commerce Clause. But plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the challenged transactions fell within their regulatory domain, and the District Court held that they failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find in their favor. Because this conclusion was a reasonable one, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.

Briefs here. Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Treaty Argument in King Mountain Tobacco v. McKenna

September 26, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion.

The court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Yakama Treaty of 1855 did not preclude enforcement of the State of Washington’s escrow statute, which requires tobacco companies to place money from cigarette sales into escrow to reimburse the State for health care costs related to the use of tobacco products.

The panel held that Washington’s escrow statute was a nondiscriminatory law and that the activities of King Mountain Tobacco Co., a company owned and operated by an enrolled member of the Yakama Indian Nation, were largely off-reservation. Accordingly, absent express federal law to the contrary, King Mountain was subject to the escrow statute. The panel held that the plain text of the Yakama Treaty did not create a federal exemption from the escrow statute. Specifically, Article II of the Treaty, which established the boundaries of the Yakama reservation and reserved it for Yakama use and benefit, was not an express federal law that exempted King Mountain from the escrow statute. Nor was Article III, which reserved to the tribe the right to travel on public highways and the right to hunt and fish. The panel held that the district court did not err by declining to make findings regarding the Treaty’s meaning to the Yakama people at the time of its signing because the meaning to the Yakama people could not overcome the clear words of the Treaty.

Briefs here.

State ex rel Attorney General v. Grand River Enterprises — New Mexico

September 15, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

From April:

2014-32-091

An excerpt:

Defendant Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., a tobacco company, appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to set aside a default judgment entered against it in an action brought by the State to force Grand River to contribute money into New Mexico’s tobacco escrow fund. On appeal, Grand River argues that the default judgment must be set aside because (1) the State failed to comply with the rules governing the service of process on foreign corporations; and (2) the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Grand River when it entered the default judgment. Because we agree with Grand River that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction, we conclude that the district court’s default judgment is void and must be set aside.