Contour Spa v. Seminole Tribe Cert Petition

Here:

Contour Spa Cert Petition

Questions Presented:

1. Does Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (2003), provide a basis for finding a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity where an Indian Tribe has expressly waived sovereign immunity, is sued in state court, removes to federal court, and then asserts sovereign immunity based on the Tribe’s concealment of the fact that the Tribe did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s lease approval requests?
2. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919). support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revisited and discarded.
3. Does the Indian Civil Rights Act, Title 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(5) and (a)(8) create an implicit cause of action permitting the Tribe to be sued for the taking of property without due process of law?
Lower court materials here.

Federal Agents Raid Puyallup Members’ Smokeshop

Here.

CNBC News Coverage of Tribal Payday Lenders

Here, via Pechanga.

WaPo on Tribal Concerns re: Keystone XL Pipeline

Here, or here.

 

Opening Brief in Encana Oil & Gas v. St. Clair (Wind River Tribal Court Jurisdiction)

Here:

Encana Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity in Contour Spa v. Seminole Tribe

Here are the materials:

CA11 Opinion

Contour Spa Opening Brief

Seminole Appellee Brief

Contour Spa Reply Brief

Lower court materials here. Commentary on the lower court case here.

Update in FTC v. Tribal Payday Lenders: Magistrate Denies Motion to Quash Fed. Subpoenas

Here are the materials in Federal Trade Commission v. AMG (D. Nev.):

AMG Motion to Dismiss

AMG 1st Motion to Quash

AMG 2d Motion to Quash

Magistrate Order Denying Motion for Protective Order

Prior materials here and here.

Update in Diné CARE v. Salazar

Here is Navajo’s latest pleading (limited motion to intervene and motion to dismiss):

FINAL COMBINED NAVAJO NATION AREA IV PLEADINGS

The complaint is here.

New York City Shows No Injury in Fact in Sale of Unstamped Cigarettes by Day Wholesale

Here is the opinion in City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros. (E.D. N.Y.):

DCT Order Granting Summary J to Day Wholesale

An excerpt:

The City of New York has brought an Amended Complaint against the above-captioned defendants,  [2] cigarette wholesalers who are state-licensed cigarette stamping agents. The principal contention of the City is that the wholesalers violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (“CCTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq., by shipping in excess of 10,000 unstamped cigarettes to Native American reservation retailers who re-sold the cigarettes to the public. According to the City, the former version New York Tax Law § 471 applied a tax to cigarettes sold to reservation retailers for re-sale to the public, and the defendant agents violated that provision by distributing large quantities of cigarettes to reservation retailers without purchasing and affixing the requisite state tax stamps. The City currently seeks civil penalties or disgorgement of profits pursuant to the CCTA, and also brings state law claims for public nuisance and violations of the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act (“CMSA”), New York Tax Law § 484. The parties have engaged in multiple rounds of motion practice, as well as some discovery, and now cross-move for summary judgment.

The defendants’ principal contentions are that the City lacks standing to pursue this action against them, that they were not legally required to  [3] affix state tax stamps to the cigarettes at issue, and that they lack the requisite scienter for liability. The City counters that the defendants’ arguments can all be rejected as a matter of law, and that there are no outstanding issues of material fact regarding its entitlement to monetary relief under the CCTA.

For the reasons stated below, the Court grants summary judgment to Day Wholesale, Inc. on the grounds that the City has failed to put forth sufficient evidence that it suffered an injury-in-fact from Day’s sales of unstamped cigarettes. The Court concludes that the City is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the liability of defendants Gutlove & Shirvint, Inc. and Mauro Pennisi, Inc. for CCTA violations, and that some amount of civil penalties is appropriate. The Court will hold a further hearing for the purpose of assessing the penalty amount. The Court denies the cross-motions as to the City’s CMSA claim, and deems the public nuisance claim withdrawn.

Abritrator Awards More than $28 Million to Grand Canyon Skywalk in Dispute with Hualapai Nation

Here are those materials:

Arbitrator Final Award

Tribal Court Minute Entry & Order