sovereign immunity

Cash Advance Oral Argument Audio File

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Briefs and materials are here.

Sault Tribe RICO Suit against Vendors

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Sault Ste. Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Hamilton (W.D. Mich.):

Sault Tribe DCT Order

Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

Sault Tribe Additional Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

Sault Tribe Complaint

Federal Civil Rights Complaint against Puyallup Tribal Police Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Boyd v. Puyallup Tribal Police (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order to Show Cause

Boyd Magistrate Report

Boyd DCT Order Adopting Magistrate Report

Wells Fargo Opinion Issued

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here: Decision and Order

Briefs are here, and the trust indenture is here.

LDF — Wells Fargo Trust Indenture

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Some have asked, so we’re posting the 86 page trust indenture: Trust Indenture

Removal of Casino Slip and Fall to Federal Court Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Harrah’s Response to Order to Show Cause

Keim DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Effort by Wells Fargo to Take Over LDF’s Lake of the Torches EDC

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Pretty incredible case. Wells Fargo, alleging financial improprieties by the EDC relating to an indentured trust, sought an order from the court appointing a receiver for the EDC. The EDC defended on grounds of sovereign immunity and that the trust had not been approved by the NIGC, apparently prevailing on the latter theory.

Here are the materials (the court has promised a written opinion “in due course”):

Wells Fargo Motion to Appoint Receiver

LDF Opposition to Motion to Appoint Receiver

Wells Fargo Reply re Motion to Appoint Receiver

Wells Fargo Supplemental Brief re Motion to Appoint Receiver

LDF Supplemental Response

Washburn Affidavit

Order of Dismissal LDF

Rosenberg v. Hualapai Indian Nation Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the cert petition in Rosenberg v. Hualapai Indian Nation (No. 09-742): Rosenberg Cert Petition.

No chance for a grant here. No circuit split. Nothing important for the SCT to decide, especially since they denied cert in the dram shop cases earlier this year. And the petition merely asks the Court to reverse itself, without really stating why. Oh, and the plaintiff had recourse to tribal court, so there isn’t a “no forum” problem.

Lower court materials are here.

The questions presented:

1. Does the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe extend to off-Indian County (extra-territorial), tortuous conduct?

a. Does Congress, and Congress alone, have the authority to establish the boundaries of tribal sovereign immunity, a judicially-created doctrine, or may this Court define its outer boundaries, as this Court has suggested in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700 (1998)?

b. Is tribal sovereign immunity broader than the immunity provided to foreign sovereign nations?

2. Does a tribe waive its sovereign immunity by engaging in conduct that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he or she might have recourse in a court of competent jurisdiction for the negligence acts of the tribe?

Federal Court Holds that Tribal Sovereign Immunity Survives Removal to Federal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

But suggests that the law is unsettled. Here is the opinion in Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino (E.D. Cal.): Ingrassia v Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino DCT Order

An excerpt:

At this point, the case law is not absolutely clear whether tribal sovereign immunity is more like the immunity enjoyed by the states or by foreign sovereigns in the circumstance of removal. There are a number of cases in which courts have applied tribal sovereign immunity after removal without addressing the issue. See New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 280 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (E.D.N.Y.2003);Maynard v. Narrangansett Indian Tribe, 798 F.Supp. 94 (D.R.I.1992); Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21776 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 19, 1997). In other cases where tribes removed, courts have pierced immunity but not based on waiver from removal. See Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir.1980). These cases, in conjunction withSonoma Falls, leads to the conclusion that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity. However, the issue is not settled and appeal may be fruitful for Plaintiffs.

Colorado v. Cash Advance Briefing Complete

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The first round of briefs (state, anti-payday loan amici, etc.) is here. The responses (mostly tribal) are here. And the final brief (state’s reply brief — State Reply Brief).