Federal Court Order Compliance with Western Sky Financial Tribal Arbitration Provision

Here are the materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall Inc. (S.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration

Cashcall Motion to Compel Arbitration or Dismiss

Inetianbor Opposition

Cashcall Reply

Inetianbor State Court Complaint

Inetianbor State Court Complaint Amendment

An excerpt:

Here, Defendant argues that the arbitration agreement, by its plain language, covers Plaintiff’s claims. The Court agrees. The terms of the agreement are clear: all disputes between the borrower and the holder of the Note or the holder’s servicer must be settled through arbitration. See Loan Agreement at 5-6. In this suit, Plaintiff seeks damages from Cashcall, the servicer of the note, for actions related to Cashcall’s servicing and collecting on the note. See Amended Complaint at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.

Casino Developer Sues Delaware Tribe for $2.6 Million

Here is the complaint in River Trails LLC v. Delaware Enterprise Authority (N.D. Okla.):

River Trails Complaint

Federal Court Affirms Arbitration Award Favoring Grand Canyon Skywalk Development

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Confirming Arbitration Award

GCSD Application to Enforce Arbitration Award

Sa Nyu Wa Reponse and Motion to Vacate

GCSD Opposition

GCSD Reply

SNW Reply

Cayuga Indian Nation RFP: Tribal Economic Development

CAYUGA NATION — Request for Proposals
The Cayuga Nation in New York State requests proposals from qualified firms or individuals to advise the Nation in preparing a plan to develop the Nation’s economy.

The Cayuga Nation is a federally-recognized sovereign Indian nation.  It is a member nation of the Haudenosaunee, or Six Nations Confederacy. The Nation is governed according to a traditional Haudenosaunee and Cayuga law and custom. The Nation has approximately 485 enrolled citizens. The Nation currently does not own any land that is held in trust by the federal government.  It holds several parcels of land in fee simple ownership. The Treaty of Canandaigua of 1794 recognized a Cayuga Reservation of approximately 64,000 acres in Seneca and Cayuga Counties, New York. The boundaries of this Reservation have never been terminated. The Nation does not own or operate a casino or other gambling enterprise.  It owns and operates a number of small enterprises within the Cayuga Reservation. The Nation does not have a separate economic development corporation.

More details in the RPF:

RFP Nation Econ Devt 3 15 13

 

Wells Fargo Motion for TRO against Moapa Tribal Court Denied

Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Advisors v. Kolhoss (D. Nev.):

DCT Order Denying TRO

Wells Fargo Complaint

Wells Fargo Motion for TRO

Moapa Tribal Court Order

Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss — Moapa Tribal Court [corrected]

From the federal court order:

Plaintiffs initiate this declaratory relief action seeking to declare that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction because the Tribe has waived sovereign immunity and agreed to arbitration. Plaintiffs seek an ex parte emergency temporary restraining order to enjoin the tribal court from proceeding with a hearing scheduled for February 7, 2013. However, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion because (1) the Motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the District of Nevada Local Rules; (2) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of an emergency; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm should the Court deny their Motion.

International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands Projects

Text here. Video here.

Legal analysis on the import of the treaty from the international law scholars at Opinio Juris, here. An excerpt:

Beyond the U.S. law, there’s also a fairly interesting issue of how international law regards this sort of treaty-making.  As I’ve written previously, international law imposes two conditions on treaty-making by a sub-national actor:  (1) explicit treaty-making authority from the State of which it is a component part (whether ex-ante or ex-post); and (2) the consent of potential treaty-partners to the sub-national actors’ participation in the treaty itself.  Here, it seems we have a willing group of treaty partners, so the treaty seems OK on the second element (that is, assuming the Canadian First Nations are themselves authorized to make treaties under Canadian law).  Still, there are questions as to whether the United States has to authorize this treaty, whether it has done so (or will need to do so going forward), and why it would ever do so when the treaty’s objective would be to lobby and/or constrain federal government behavior.  Now, there is an argument that, as indigenous peoples, Native American tribes should not be subject to the standard rules for treaty-making by sub-national actors (indeed, Article 36(1) of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights makes just such a claim).  But, the United States was one of four nations to object to that Declaration (along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand), so I’m hard pressed to see it getting traction in this case, especially where the treaty involves an alliance of indigenous peoples to oppose federal licensing efforts (and with it perhaps some key aspects of U.S. energy policy).

As such, I think the ball is now firmly in the Obama Administration’s court.  I’m interested to see how it responds to this treaty (including, which Agency takes the lead in responding to it).  I suppose silence is a possible course of action.  But, if the federal government remains silent, I think that might lead to arguments of U.S. tacit approval for this treaty in particular, and even more broadly, a right of treaty making with foreign powers for U.S. Native American tribes.

For a primer on intertribal treaty making, see Wenona Singel’s Indian Tribes and Human Rights Accountability (email me if you want a pdf).

Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of Navajo Employment Preference Law against Salt River Project

Here are the materials in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Lee (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Granting Salt River Project Motion

Salt River Project Motion for Summary J

Navajo Cross-Motion

Salt River Project Reply

Navajo Reply

This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit, materials here.

For more background on the Navajo Preference in Employment Act, see Howard Brown and Ray Austin’s excellent article here.

LSJ Article about Lansing Casino Lawsuit

Here.

GRAND RAPIDS — A federal judge Wednesday said he could decide within 30 days whether to allow Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette to halt a proposed Lansing casino.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker announced the timeline after attorneys from the state and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians argued in a Grand Rapids courtroom about whether Schuette’s six-count lawsuit, filed in September, should be dismissed.

Earlier coverage here.

N.Y. Trial Court Holds Lower Brule Corporation Not Immune from Discovery in Loan Dispute

Here is the opinion in Seaport Loan Products LLC v. Lower Brule Community (N.Y. Supreme Ct.):

Seaport-LBCDE – Decision re Motion to Compel

News coverage: NY Law Journal Article (Sovereign Immunity)

The complaint is here.

Washington COA Holds State Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Tribal Corporation

Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corporation:

Wash COA Opinion

And the briefs:

Outsource Services Management, Respondent v. Nooksack Business Corporation, Appellant
Case Number – 67050-6
Hearing Date – 09/20/2012