Here is the opinion in Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. News article here.
Along with Oklahoma, New Mexico is one of the few states to allow state law dram shop actions against tribal businesses. And, along with Oklahoma, the reasoning behind the decision is tied to the state-specific jurisdictional scheme created in the tribal gaming compacts.
John Duncan, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, announced on Friday that s. 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act would be repealed, as of June 18th. This was done to “ensure First Nations people have the same protection of their human rights as other Canadians.” Therefore, as of Saturday, any decisions made or actions taken by band councils and the federal government, made under or pursuant to the Indian Act, will be fully subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Here is the order and motion to reconsider:
Jackson Band Motion for Reconsideration
And the previous order declining to dismiss (and relevant briefs) are here.
Here are the materials in Allman v. Creek Casino Wetumpka (M.D. Ala.):
Magistrate Recommendation on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Here are the materials in Center for Biological Diversity v. Pizarchik (D. Colo.):
Here is the court’s summary:
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). As a grandparent of two children associated with the Washoe Tribe, plaintiff seeks custody of her grandchildren despite the previous action of the Washoe Tribal Court and the Inter-Tribal Court of Appeal of Nevada. Presently pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies and for sovereign immunity.
The interrelationship of federal and tribal courts is a delicate and often complex matter. This case fits that mold. While it is clear that a federal court may have jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s federal claim, Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004), the parameters of that claim are not clear, i.e., jurisdiction over what. Nor does plaintiff’s complaint make clear what she seeks. Although alleging at one point that the Washoe tribal court lacked jurisdiction, and that she was denied due process in some manner, plaintiff does not clearly specify her precise claims or ask for any certain relief. In supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional question (Docket #25), plaintiff indicated that she wished the children returned to her.
The undersigned finds that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim by plaintiff, and that claim may include an attack on the tribal court jurisdiction and any constitutional claims that plaintiff may have, e.g., lack of due process in taking the children from non-Washoe lands, lack of due process in the tribal court, alleged fundamental right of a grandparent to custody over grandchildren in the circumstances of this case. The undersigned will defer ruling on the validity of any such claims until they are specified with greater particularity and further facts are known. Likewise, the undersigned will not attempt to define now what remedies may be available. The undersigned further concludes that plaintiff has exhausted her tribal court remedies. With respect to sovereign immunity, the court will defer ruling on such a claim until after an amended complaint is filed setting forth with preciseness the nature of plaintiff’s claims and appropriate defendants.
Here are the materials so far in Fred v. Washoe Tribe (E.D. Cal.):
Apparently, plaintiffs in Arizona have begun to file tort cases that are not within the scope of the Federal Tort Claims Act against Indian tribes and tribal employees in state court on the theory that 25 USC sec. 450f(c) is a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity for claims that don’t fall within the FTCA.
Here are the materials in one such case:
Motion to Set Aside Judgment 12.22.10
Gila River Indian Community Amicus Brief 06-08-11
US Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief 06.01.11
Amended Opposition to Motion to Set Aside 02.02.11
Here are the materials from the Tulalip Tribal Court (miigwetch to M.T.):
Pltf’s Opp to Motion to Dismiss
Here is the Nebraska Supreme Court’s opinion.
And the materials we have so far:
2011-04-04 Omaha Tribe Motion for Rehearing
Storevisions Response to Motion for Rehearing.
2011-04-25 Amici Curiae Brief inSupport of Def-appellant Omaha
Here is the opening brief in Koscielak v. Stockbridge-Munsee Community:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.