Here are the materials in Waltrip v. Osage Million Dollar Elm Casino:
sovereign immunity
Slip and Fall Suit against Muscogee Casino Dismissed in Federal Court after Removal from State Court
Here are the materials in Harris v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation (N.D. Okla.):
Update in Alto v. Salazar (San Pasqual Disenrollment Challenge)
We left it in December with the court enjoining Interior from removing the Alto plaintiffs from the San Pasqual Band rolls. Here are additional materials leading to last week’s order denying the tribe’s motion to dissolve the order:
San Pasqual Motion to Dissolve PI
Alto Response to Motion to Dismiss
San Pasqual Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
San Pasqual Reply in Support of Motion to Dissolve
DCT Order Denying Motion to Dissolve
And now pending responses:
SCOTUSblog Coverage of Patchak Decision
Here.
And their plain language description:
In this case, the federal government took certain land into trust for an Indian tribe, which means that it took ownership of the land to allow the tribe to use it. The tribe planned to build a casino on the land. The Supreme Court held that a neighbor could sue the government to stop the casino project on the ground that the law did not permit the government to take the land into trust for this particular tribe
.
MLive In-Depth Coverage of Patchak Decision
Here.
An excerpt:
The ruling, Fletcher said, was not really a surprise.
“This is a court that is pretty reluctant to rule in favor of Indian tribes and I think they are very skeptical of things like Indian gaming.”
Fletcher said the Sotomayor dissent highlights the destabilizing consequences of Monday’s decision. Wrote Sotomayor:
“… the majority’s rule will impose a substantial burden on the Government and leave an array of uncertainties. Moreover, it will open to suit lands that Congress and the Executive Branch thought the “national public interest” demanded should remain immune from challenge. Congress did not intend either result.”
Fletcher said that whereas parties seeking to challenge land-in-title decisions previously only had 30 days to file action, after Monday, tribes will likely have to wait six years to develop any property the government takes into trust while they wait out potential lawsuits against the use of the property.
“It’s very difficult to borrow money or do anything with land under those circumstances.’
The vast majority of Indian land-in-trust decisions by the government are for reasons like housing, treat rights, environmental protection and public safety. Very little are done for gaming reasons, Fletcher said.
Update in Federal Trade Commission Suit against Tribal Payday Lenders et al.
Here are additional pleadings in Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. (D. Nev.):
Scott Tucker & AMG Motion to Dismiss
The “responses” are responses to the FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction. That motion and the complaint are here and here.
News coverage via Pechanga here.
Business Week Article on Tribal Payday Lenders
California Court of Appeals Decides Tribal Corporate Immunity Case
Here is the opinion in American Property Management Corp. v. Superior Court (with concurrence):
An excerpt:
In 2003, Sycuan Tribal Development Corporation (STDC), a corporation chartered under Sycuan’s tribal laws, invested in the purchase of the U.S. Grant Hotel in downtown San Diego (the hotel) but created several layers of California limited liability companies to stand between it and the entity that took ownership of the hotel.
Specifically, U.S. Grant, LLC — a California limited liability company — purchased the hotel in 2003. U.S. Grant, LLC is wholly owned by its sole member Sycuan Investors – U.S. Grant, LLC (Sycuan Investors, LLC), a California limited liability company. Sycuan Investors, LLC, in turn, is wholly owned by its sole member American Property Investors – U.S. Grant, LLC (American Property Investors, LLC), a California limited liability company. American Property Investors, LLC is wholly owned by its sole member STDC. All three limited liability companies were organized in late 2003 in connection with the transaction to purchase the hotel.
Complete Tenth Circuit Briefing in Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distributors (Including Supplemental Briefs)
Here:
CA10 Order to File Supplemental Briefs
The Tenth Circuit panel requested supplemental briefing after oral argument to address this issue:
This court has previously acknowledged that “[t]ribal sovereign immunity is deemed to be coextensive with the sovereign immunity of the United States.” Miner Elec., Inc. v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 505 F.3d 1007, 1011 (10th Cir.
2007) (citation omitted). Regarding the sovereign immunity of the United States, other circuits have held that where the United States is the sole shareholder of an entity incorporated under state law, the United States’ sovereign immunity does not extend to the entity. See Panama R. Co. v. Curran, 256 F. 768, 771-72 (5th Cir. 1919) (quoting Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 904, 907–08 (1824)); Salas v. United States, 234 F. 842, 844–45 (2d Cir. 1916). The parties are therefore directed to submit supplemental briefs regarding the following issues:a) Does CND’s organization as a separate legal entity under Oklahoma’s Limited Liability Company Act preclude it from sharing in the Cherokee Nation’s sovereign immunity?
Lower court materials here.
New Student Scholarship on Tribal Waivers of Immunity by Unauthorized Tribal Officials
Adam Keith, a Penn Law student, has published “Who Should Pay for the Errors of the Tribal Agent?: Why Courts Should Enforce Contractual Waivers of Tribal Immunity When an Agent Exceeds Her Authority under Tribal Law.” The article appears in the Penn Journal of Business Law. The article criticizes a recent Sixth Circuit decision on the immunity of Section 17 corporations.
Here is a snippet:
When tribal commercial organizations engage in commercial dealings, their non-tribal counterparties almost universally insist that a waiver of tribal immunity be included within any contractual agreement so as to retain their access to state and federal courts should they decide to litigate any commercial disputes against the tribal entity. In a recent case, the Sixth Circuit weakened the reliability of these waivers by ruling that the court will not enforce such a waiver when a tribal agent assents to one while possessing only apparent authority in the eyes of the tribal counterparty but not actual authority under tribal law. This comment will argue that there are three reasons that courts should enforce such waivers: because doing so is consistent with the principles associated with waivers of tribal immunity; because it will not have deleterious effects on tribal sovereignty; and because it will improve the efficiency of tribal commercial dealings with non-tribal entities.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.