Indianz reported here. Our previous posting with links to materials is here.
Here is the opinion — dct-order-denying-preliminary-injunction
And the brief filed opposing the injunction from C&W — cw-opposition-to-motion-for-injunction
sovereign immunity
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule in Native Tobacco Wholesaler Case
The case is Idaho v. Native Wholesale Supply, out of the District of Idaho. The district court remanded the case back to state court.
dct-order-remanding-to-state-court
native-wholesale-motion-to-dismiss
Indigenous Law and Policy Center Occasional Papers — Updated
We’ve posted several recent papers. Here is the website for all of our papers dating back to 2006.
- 2009-01
- Advising – and Suing – Tribal Officials: On the Scope of Tribal Official Immunity by Matthew L.M. Fletcher and Kathryn E. Fort
- 2009-02
- The Ethics of Pushing the Envelope in Indian Law Cases by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
- 2009-03
- Supreme Court Reversal of Carcieri: Implications for Reaffirmed Michigan Indian Tribes by Novaline D. Wilson
- 2009-04
- The Origins of the Indian Child Welfare Act: A Survey of the Legislative History by Matthew L.M Fletcher
Employment Discrimination Claim against Chickasaw Nation Industries Dismissed
The case is Bales v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, out of the District of New Mexico. Here is the DCT order — dct-order-dismissing-bales-complaint
An excerpt:
On March 31, 2008, Defendant filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 9) based on tribal sovereign immunity. On June 13, 2008, the Court informed the parties by letter that on March 19, 2008 the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument in Native American Distributing, et al. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company, et al, 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir.2008)(hereinafter referred to as NAD ), a case discussing tribal sovereign immunity with respect to an Oklahoma tribal corporation. The Court also gave the parties an opportunity to supplement their briefs to address the significance of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in NAD. The parties, in fact, filed supplemental briefs. See Doc. Nos. 24, 25, and 26. Having considered the briefs (including the supplemental briefs) and the relevant law, the Court concludes that the motion to dismiss should be granted and that this lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
And the briefs:
Tenth Circuit Briefing in Important Quiet Title Act Case
The case is Sac and Fox Nation v. Salazar, and is in the Tenth Circuit. Since Carcieri v. Salazar, for a whole bunch of tribes, the Quiet Title Act (QTA) has become a terribly important statute. As readers will recall, the Act expressly preserves the federal government’s sovereign immunity in cases challenging title to Indian trust lands.
Sac and Fox, which involves the Secretary’s taking into trust of the so-called Shriner Tract in Kansas on behalf of the Oklahoma Wyandotte community, is perhaps one of the more ruthless applications of federal sovereign immunity, in that the parties and the courts in prior years had sought to avoid the application of the QTA by keeping open a case even after the land had been taken into trust. When the district court mistakenly closed the case, forcing the plaintiffs to refile, the QTA kicked in with a vengance, forcing the district court to dismiss (see lower court materials here).
Cook v. Avi Casino Enterprises Cert Petitions — UPDATED
Apparently, there are two cert petitions in this, from the same petitioners but from different lower court judgments.
Ninth Circuit petition (08-929):
Cert Opposition 08-929
Arizona Court of Appeals petition (08-930):
Cert Petition 08-930
Connecticut Court Dismisses Dram Shop Action against Mohegans
Maybe another one to watch involving the state law question of whether tribal businesses are immune from Dram Shop actions. The case is Vanstaen-Holland v. Lavigne.
Oglala Sioux Tribe Wins TRO in Sovereign Immunity Case
The case is Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C&W Enters., on remand to the District of South Dakota from the Eighth Circuit. Here is the order on the TRO — ost-v-cw-dct-order-on-tro
The case involves a contract waiver of immunity through an arbitration clause. Here are the Eighth Circuit materials.
Lawyer Threatened with Rule 11 Sanctions If Brings Another Claim against Oneida Indian Nation
Here is the opinion in Smith v. Oneida Employment Services (smith-v-oneida-dct-order), out of the Northern District of New York. Indianz and others have reported on this case, which was an employment claim dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity. Here is the footnote regarding Rule 11 (and for more discussion on Rule 11 see my paper here):
Although the Court could sanction Plaintiff’s counsel for violating Rule 11 based on several of the factual allegations and legal arguments that he has submitted to the Court in this litigation, it will not do so at this time. However, the Court advises Plaintiff’s counsel that the Court will not tolerate such conduct in the future and will not hesitate to impose sanctions on him for any future violations.
Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms Tribal Sovereign Immunity
The case is Freemanville Water System, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (opinion). Our post on the district court case is here. An excerpt:
After a hard look at the statute the only thing that is unmistakably clear to us is that the statutory language does not make it unmistakably clear that Congress intended to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity from lawsuits claiming a violation of the anti-curtailment provision [of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act]. See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 73, 120 S. Ct. at 640.
And here are the appellate briefs:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.