sovereign immunity – Page 27

This Court has twice granted certiorari to decide whether tribal sovereign immunity bars lawsuits concerning rights to property that a tribe acquires on the open market. See Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, 138 S.Ct. 1649 (2018); Madison Cty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 562 U.S. 960 (2010) (mem.). Both times, however, subsequent developments prevented the Court from definitively answering the question. This case presents an opportunity to definitively answer that important and recurring question. In the decision below, the Second Circuit doubled down on the holding that this Court granted certiorari to review in Madison County, and again robbed this Court’s decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005), of practical effect by holding that if an Indian tribe purchases land on the open market and refuses to pay property taxes, there is nothing a local jurisdiction can do about it. That decision cannot be reconciled with Sherrill, and it effectively grants tribes a super immunity by rejecting the “uniform authority in support of the view that” the “immovable property” exception would preclude any sovereign’s efforts to invoke sovereign immunity in these circumstances. Upper Skagit, 138 S.Ct. at 1657 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

The question presented is:

Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars local tax authorities from collecting lawfully imposed property taxes by foreclosing on real property that a tribe has acquired on the open market.

North Dakota SCT Confirms Tribal Immunity Cloaks Tribal Business

February 19, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State of North Dakota by and through Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Cherokee Services Corp.:

2021ND36 — Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Federal Court Allows Some Tobacco Business Claims in Dispute between Sac and Fox, Seneca, and Susanville Rancheria Companies

February 16, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Allegheny Capital Enterprises LLC v. Cox (W.D. N.Y.):

8 Amended Complaint

17-8 Motion to Dismiss

17-5 Arbitration Decision

21 Response

22 Reply

23 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This is a diversity action commenced by a corporate entity affiliated with the Sac and Fox of Oklahoma Tribe (doing business in the Seneca Nation in New York) and a partnership doing business in the Seneca Nation. They claim that Defendants, officers of affiliated corporations of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (a Native tribe in California, also referred to as “SIR”), made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs that led to Plaintiffs entering into the tobacco manufacturing and distribution contracts with one of the affiliated corporations. Defendants represented that they had the authority to waive tribal sovereign immunity for the affiliate corporation and that the affiliate in fact waived that immunity. After an alleged breach of these contracts, Plaintiffs lodged claims against one of the affiliate corporations, but the corporation successfully asserted that it did not waive its tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs then commenced this action against the officers; they did not name the corporation as a Defendant.

Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) the Amended Complaint on sovereign immunity, jurisdictional, and pleading grounds. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part (dismissing claims against Defendants Stacy Dixon and Jolene Robles for lack of personal jurisdiction), denied in part (denying other grounds asserted). After resolution of this motion, Plaintiffs retain claims against Defendant Gretchen Cox.

Wakpamni Lake Corp. Seeks Relief from Default Judgment in TED Bonds Fraud Case

February 1, 2021February 1, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the pleading from Michelin Retirement Plan v. Dilworth Paxon LLP (D.S.C.):

608 WLCC Rule 60 Motion

608-1 Lone Hill Declaration

608-15 Victim Impact Statement

608-16 Raynes Declaration

An excerpt from the motion:

In or about the fall of 2017, a man named Quattlebaum contacted WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community President Lone Hill on three separate occasions. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) President Lone Hill understood that Mr. Quattlebaum was Judge Quattlebaum, then a United States District Judge for this Court.1 (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) Mr. Quattlebaum asked President Lone Hill about the financial state of WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community and about the subject matter of the lawsuit. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27.) Based on the information received, Mr. Quattlebaum deduced that WLCC and the Wakpamni Lake Community were destitute. (Id.) President Lone Hill understood from her conversations with Mr. Quattlebaum that he understood and appreciated their innocent and impoverished position. President Lone Hill further understood and believed that Mr. Quattlebaum—as a judge of this Court—indicated to her that no further action was needed with respect to this case.

Prior post in this case here.