sovereign immunity – Page 108

Cal. Appellate Court Remands Jamul Tribal Members’ Challenge to Tribal Gaming Operations

April 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Jamulians against the Casino v. Iwasaki (Cal. App. 3rd Dist.):

An excerpt:

Consistent with its litigation strategy in the trial court, the Tribe has declined to make a general appearance in this court as a respondent, but sought leave to appear as an amicus curiae (which we granted). Although the Tribe’s amicus brief makes colorable arguments in favor of its indispensible status, this is an issue on which the trial court must exercise its discretion in balancing several criteria in the first instance. We therefore will reverse the judgment sustaining the demurrer with directions to the trial court to address the merits of the issue on remand.

Federal Court Remands Missouri Case against Martin Webb Pay Day Lenders Back to State Court

April 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State of Missouri v. Webb (E.D. Mo.):

DCT Order Remanding Mo. Complaint to State Court

Webb Motion to Dismiss

Mo. Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Webb Reply

Mo. Motion to Remand

Webb Opposition to Motion for Remand

Opening D.C. Circuit Brief in Vann v. Interior

March 31, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Opening Vann Brief

Kickapoo Court Dismisses Charges against Tribal Elected Officials

March 22, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the news coverage.

An excerpt:

In her decision handed down on March 12, Judge Wahwassuck found:

1. The Plaintiffs (have) failed to carry their burden of establishing that the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas and/or its agents (the Defendants herein) have waived tribal sovereign immunity in this matter.

2. The Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have a “property” right to their positions on the Gaming Commission, and thus have failed to demonstrate that their due process rights under the Indian Civil Rights Act were violated.

With these findings and her conclusion of law that the Defendants action was protected from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled.