Here is the petition in MTE Financial Services v. Alameda County Superior Court:
sovereign immunity
Sac and Fox SCT Holds Gaming Equipment Contract is Void Management Contract; No Valid Immunity Waiver
Here is the opinion in New Gaming Systems v. Sac and Fox Nation:
Oklahoma Supreme Court Affirms Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Employment Contract Claim
The case is Dilliner v. Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, 2011 OK 61, No. 109805. From the opinion:
Plaintiffs ask us to conclude that, because the Business Committee granted authority to Chief Spicer to sign employment contracts with tribal employees for three year terms at their current positions and salaries, those contracts must have been approved and ratified in all particulars, including the limited waiver of sovereign immunity. We do not agree with plaintiffs’ position. Federal law requires that the waiver of sovereign immunity be express and unequivocal; it cannot be implied. The Tribe’s Constitution and By-Laws do not authorize the Chief to waive the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.
¶20 Waiver of sovereign immunity was neither expressed nor consented to in the Business Committee’s resolutions that authorized the Chief to sign the employment contracts. Neither of the resolutions expressly ratified the contracts that Chief Spicer entered into: Resolution #27-072607 only authorized the Chief to sign a contract with tribal employees for a three year term, in their present positions of employment and at their present salaries; Resolution #46-081407 ratified only the resolution, not the contracts. We must conclude that under these circumstances, there was no express and unequivocal waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.5
¶21 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
House Bill to Ban NLRB from Tribal Business Introduced
The bill “To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under the National Labor Relations Act” was introduced last week and the text of the bill became available today.
H.R. 2335 (text)
Here’s a link to other information about the bill.
Finally, a story on the bill from The Daily Republic:
WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., introduced legislation Thursday to clarify that the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over tribally owned businesses on reservation land as a matter tribal sovereignty.
In 2004 the National Labor Relations Board, which is the federal agency of the U.S. government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and other labor-related duties, determined that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) applies to activities on reservation lands. This bill would reverse that decision. The legislation stands to defend tribal sovereignty and promote economic opportunities on reservations lands by eliminating ambiguity in existing federal law. Continue reading
New Mexico Supreme Court Holds State Dram Shop Actions Apply to Tribal Enterprises
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.
Repeal of Canadian Human Rights Act s. 67 – Good For Individual Aboriginals ~ Very Bad For First Nations
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.
Jackson Band Miwok Wins Dismissal of Age Discrimination Complaint (On Reconsideration)
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.
Federal Court Denies Right to Proceed in Claim against Poarch Creek Casino
Here are the materials in Allman v. Creek Casino Wetumpka (M.D. Ala.):
Magistrate Recommendation on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Navajo Nation Moves to Intervene in Environmental Suit to Protect Navajo Mine Interests
Here are the materials in Center for Biological Diversity v. Pizarchik (D. Colo.):
Calif. Federal Magistrate Recommends Asserting Jurisdiction over Nevada Tribe ICW Case
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.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.