The case is ATTORNEY’S PROCESS AND INVESTIGATION SERVICES, INC. v. SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA.
After having been reopened (see our post here), post-tribal remedies exhaustion, the tribe filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Both are pending after the court’s order to allow amendment of some of the pleadings.
API Resistance to Motion to Dismiss
The Supreme Court denied cert in two petitions captioned Cook v. Avi Casino Enterprises (Nos. 08-929, 08-930). It’s on page 4 of this order list.
This is good news for Indian Country (and for my student writing a paper on this subject — you reading this, J.?). There is a split of authority on the question of whether tribal business enterprises are immune from suit in a state law dram shop action, as we have discussed before. But I’m guessing the Court thinks it’s either unimportant or too much a state law question, since each state has its own version of dram shop laws and applies its own understanding of tribal sovereign immunity. But who knows….
The case is Memphis Biofuels v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, being appealed to the Sixth Circuit from the Western District of Tennessee. The case involves the assertion by CNI, a Section 17 corporation, that it is entitled to sovereign immunity, and that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this contract claim against it. The lower court granted CNI’s motion to dismiss and Memphis Biofuels has appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Here are the lower court materials:
memphis-biofuels-complaint-and-exhibits
cni-motion-to-dismiss-and-exhibits
memphis-biofuels-response-to-motion-to-dismiss
memphis-biofuels-supplemental-memorandum
Sixth Circuit materials:
The Northern District of Oklahoma found that the Muscogee Tribal court did not have jurisdiction over the firm Crowe & Dunlevy who represented Thlopthlocco Tribal Town in an intratribal dispute. The case began in Muscogee Nation tribal court, but the firm eventually filed suit in federal district court to prevent enforcement of a tribal court order. Tribal sovereign immunity, Ex parte Young, judicial immunity, Rule 19 and Montana exceptions are all discussed in the decision.
Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, — F.Supp.2d —-, (N.D.Okla. Apr 24, 2009) (NO. 09-CV-095-TCK-PJC)
Here is the government’s cert opp in this important sovereign immunity case — federal-cert-opp-marceau
The Supreme Court Project’s materials are here and the cert petition is here.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cash Advance v. State ex rel. Suthers. We have posted on this case before (here and here). There was a similar case in California involving the same tribes.
Now would be a good time to talk settlement, tribal leaders. Tribal sovereign immunity shouldn’t be wasted on companies like Cash Advance and Ameriloan.
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
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
We’ve posted several recent papers. Here is the website for all of our papers dating back to 2006.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.