Federal Court Rejects Contractor’s Demand for Arbitration, Citing Stillaguamish Immunity

Here are the materials in Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. Pilchuck Group II L.L.C. (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Granting Stillaguamish Tribe Motion

Stillaguamish Motion for Summary J

Pilchuck Group Motion for Summary J

Stillaguamish Complaint

Stillaguamish Motion for PI

 

Puyallup Tribal Police Officer Immunity Upheld

Here is the Washington Court of Appeals’ unpublished decision in Young v. Duenas.

Here is an excerpt:

Chris Young appeals the trial court’s CR 12(b)(1) dismissal of his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  He argues that the defendant tribal police officers  present at the time of his brother’s death are not protected by the Puyallup Tribe’s sovereign immunity and that the state should have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.   Because the officers acted in their official capacity and within the scope of the tribe’s authority, the trial court properly dismissed based on sovereign immunity.  We affirm.

 

Federal Government and Cherokee Nation Responses to Cherokee Freedmen Motion to Enjoin Principal Chief Election

Here are the updated materials in Vann v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

USA Response to Vann Motion

Cherokee Nation Response to Vann Motion

The Vann motion is here.

Seventh Circuit Affirms Wells Fargo v. Lake of the Woods; Remands to Allow Wells Fargo to Amend Complaint for Other Relief

Here is today’s opinion. An excerpt:

We conclude that the Indenture constitutes a management contract under IGRA and that, as a condition of its validity, it should have been submitted to the Chairman of the NIGC for approval prior to its implementation. The parties’ failure to secure such approval renders the Indenture void in its entirety and thus invalidate s the Corporation’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The district court therefore correctly determined that it was without jurisdiction with respect to Wells Fargo’s motion for the appointment of a receiver.

We further conclude that the district court should have permitted Wells Fargo leave to file an amended complaint to the extent that it presented claims for legal and equitable relief in connection with the bond transaction on its own behalf and on behalf of the bondholder. Upon the filing of such a complaint, the district court should address the issue of whether, now that the Indenture has been determined to be void, Wells Fargo has standing to litigate claims on behalf of the bondholder. The court also must determine whether the collateral documents, when read separately or together, waive the sovereign immunity of the Corporation with respect to any such claims. If such a waiver is found, the court may proceed to determine the merits of those claims.

Lower courts briefing.

Eighth Circuit Briefing in Alltel v. Oglala Sioux Tribe

Here:

OST Opening Brief

Alltel Brief

OST Reply

Lower court materials are here.

Update in Center for Biological Diversity v. Pizarchik (and Navajo Nation and BHP Navajo Coal)

The Navajo motion to intervene in this suit is here.

The updated materials:

CBD Response to Navajo Motion to Dismiss

US Response

BNCC Response

Navajo Reply

New Mexico Bankruptcy Court Holds Bankruptcy Code Waives Tribal Immunity

Here are some of the materials in In re Platinum Properties, Inc. (Bankr. N.M.):

Bkrcy CT Order re Platinum Oil

Jicarilla Motion for Summary J

Jicarilla Reply

Jicarilla Supp Brief

DOI Advisory Brief

Other materials are here.

Class Action against High Stakes Bingo Machine Manufacturers Dismissed under Rule 19

This dispute arises from the Poarch Band’s high stakes bingo operations. Poarch Band was not named.

The case is Hardy v. IGT (M.D. Ala.):

Bally Motion to Dismiss

Multimedia Games Motion to Dismiss

Rocket Games Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Dismissing Hardy Class Action

Seneca Telephone v. Miami Tribe Cert Petition

Here (updated 8/24/11 with better pdf):

Seneca Telephone Cert Petition

Questions Presented:

1. Under federal preemption principles invoked in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), and specifically, the principles determinative on the applicability of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity in a regulatory context, did the Oklahoma Supreme Court err and issue a conflicting ruling with this Court’s decision in Rice when it failed to apply the preemption principles to the present cases?
2. Under the preemption principles invoked in Rice, as applied to the present cases, does the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151et. seq.) delegate to the States the authority to exercise jurisdiction over tribal entities when Congress confers to the States the power to exercise jurisdiction over all intrastate communications?
Lower court materials are here.

ADA Claim against Navajo Healthcare Provider Dismissed

Here are the materials in Vulgamore v. Tuba City Regional Healthcare Corporation (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order Dismissing Vulgamore Complaint

Tuba City Motion to Dismiss

Vulgamore Response

Tuba City Reply