This can be what happens when you sue someone while represented by an attorney who is not licensed in the proper state bar. The court dismissed the tort claim against the tribe because the attorney wasn’t licensed in California, but noted it would have dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, too.
sovereign immunity
Hendrix v. Coffee — Comanche Membership Dispute
Here are the materials in this case, dismissed on the basis that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
PPI v. Kempthorne – Denial of Injunction against Seminole Hard Rock Bingo
Here is the order re: PPI’s request for an injunction in light of the Florida House v. Crist ruling. It was denied — once again, my favorite rule — Rule 19 — came into play. [Thanks to T.W.]
PPI’s complaint and request for an injunction is here.
Hunt Construction Group v. Oneida Indian Nation
In this short order, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court reads the tribal waiver of sovereign immunity closely, holding that while the portion of the contract that reads
defendant “hereby expressly, unequivocally, and irrevocably waives its sovereign immunity from suit solely for the limited purpose of enforcement of the terms of this Agreement”
does indeed waive the Nation’s sovereign immunity in this matter, the portion that reads
[defendant] hereby consents to submit to personal jurisdiction of those courts of the State of New York and of the United States with competent subject matter jurisdiction located in the City of Syracuse, New York and the parties agree that all actions related to this Agreement shall be brought or defended in such courts ” (emphasis added).
means that the suit can only be brought in the City of Syracuse, not in Oneida County. This order overturns the lower court ruling which denied dismissal.
Silbernagel v. Standing Rock/Fort Totten School
This case, in the District Court for South Dakota, involves the question of whether the Standing Rock/Fort Totten Community School is entitled to tribal sovereign immunity or whether it has lost its tribal character. This is a discovery order opening up discovery on the question. The underlying question involves a tort claim against the school — sexual harassment.
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel — Rule 19 and Sovereign Immunity
The Supreme Court released its opinion in Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, just a few minutes ago. The case involved a claim under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and FRCP 19 that a human rights claim involving the Philippines should be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party (a sovereign entity with sovereign immunity). The briefings featured several Indian law cases decided by the lower courts.
The Supreme Court’s opinion highlighted one of these opinions, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This is one of the strongest pro-tribal sovereign opinions on this question ever decided. Good deal, despite the bad outcome for human rights claimants in general.
Kemp v. Osage Nation Cert Petition
Here, the Oklahoma Tax Commission is seeking review of a CA10 decision allowing a suit brought by the Osage Nation to proceed over sovereign immunity objections. Here is our post about the CA10 decision, with briefs and other materials. And here is the cert petition.
Here are the questions presented (from the petition):
1. May federal courts employ the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), to permit suits by Indian tribes, otherwise barred by state sovereign immunity, that seek to establish sovereignty and jurisdiction over historical reservations, without taking into consideration the substantial impact of the relief on the sovereignty and jurisdiction long-exercised over such lands by states?
2. In view of this Court’s ruling in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), and other decisions, may a federal court allow an Indian tribe’s suit – otherwise barred by the Eleventh Amendment – to proceed against state officers under the so-called “straightforward inquiry” used to determine the application of the Ex parte Young exception, when the relief would divest a state of substantial and long-exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction over its largest county?
3. Does a suit by an Indian tribe seeking a judicial determination that its historical reservation “remains” a present-day reservation involve the type of retrospective relief that cannot be pursued against state officers under the Ex parte Young exception to state sovereign immunity?
Shepherd v. Slade — Mystic Lake Casino Employee Dispute
Here, the Minnesota Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision declined to dismiss a claim for tortious interference with contract and other claims, denying a Rule 19 (state law) motion. From the opinion:
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss respondent’s complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Appellant asserts that the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (the tribe) is an indispensable party to the suit and that, because the tribe cannot be joined, the suit must be dismissed. We conclude that the tribe is neither a necessary nor an indispensable party and therefore affirm the district court’s decision.
Slip op. at 2.
The underlying dispute arose when the nonmember tribal casino employee was barred from the casino by the tribal court (and therefore terminated). The state trial court made disturbing statements about the tribal court, but the COA, while troubled, did not find those statements sufficient to reverse:
We agree that the district court’s comments are troubling. “‘Tribal courts have repeatedly been recognized as appropriate forums for the exclusive adjudication of disputes affecting important personal and property interests of both Indians and non-Indians.'” St. Pierre v. Norton, 498 F. Supp. 2d 214, 221 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 65-66, 98 S. Ct. 1670, 1680-81 (1978)); see also Lewis v. Norton, 424 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The issue is not whether the plaintiffs’ claims would be successful in these tribal forums, but only whether tribal forums exist that could potentially resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.”). The district court’s suggestion that the tribal courts could not provide an adequate alternative forum for Shepherd’s claims lacks foundation. The fact that Shepherd is the subject of a no-trespass order by the tribe does not necessarily mean that she cannot receive a fair trial of her claims against Stade in tribal court.
Slip op. at 10.
Lobo v. Miccosukee — CA11 Rejects FLSA Claim
Samish Indian Tribe v US — DCT Dismisses for Lack of Jurisdiction
This case may harbor some bad news for Michigan tribes who had been administratively terminated and still hoping to be able to recover for the years that the federal government illegally failed to provide services.
samish-second-amended-complaint
us-motion-to-dismiss-samish-complaint
samish-report-on-why-discovery-should-be-permitted
us-supplement-brief-re-motion-to-dismiss
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.