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

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.

Connecticut SCT Briefs in Great Plains Lending LLC v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Banking

Here:

Great Plains Brief

State Brief

Great Plains Reply

State Reply

Prior post here.

California COA Rejects Immovable Property Exception to Tribal Immunity

Here is the opinion in Self v. Cher-AE Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria:

California COA Opinion

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Response Brief

Reply

Federal Court Dismisses Remaining Claims of Wapato Heritage in Colville Leasing Matter

Here are the materials in Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

275 Colville Motion to Dismiss

570 US Motion to Dismiss

571 Colville Supplemental Brief re 275

572 Wapato Motion for Partial Summary J

577 Wapato Response to 275

588 Colville Reply in Support of 275

589 Wapato Response to 570

592 US Response to 572

605 US Reply in Support of 570

644 DCT Order

646 US Motion to Dismiss

649 Response

651 Reply

652 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Materials in Suit against Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe Internet Lending Biz

Here are the materials in Easley v. Hummingbird Funds (S.D. Ala.):

34 Amended Complaint

37 Motion to Dismiss

69 Opposition

73 Reply

75 Magistrate Report

81 Objection

82 DCT Order

Eleventh Circuit briefs:

Opening Brief

Federal Court Dismisses Tort Claim Against Alabama-Coushatta Tribe

Here are the materials in Jones v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe (E.D. Tex.):

1 Complaint

9 Motion to Dismiss

12 Amended Complaint

18 Motion to Dismiss

20 Response

21 Reply

22 Surreply

25 Magistrate Report

26 Tribe Objections

27 Jones Objections

29 Tribe Response

30 Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

31 Response

32 Reply

33 Magistrate Report

34 Jones Objection

35 Response

36 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Jones’s objections to the Reports do not raise any new arguments to support his claim that his premises liability claim is not barred by sovereign immunity. He instead continues to argue that this court should follow Wilkes v. PCI Gaming Authority, 287 So.3d 330and hold that the Tribe’s sovereign immunity is waived in the interests of justice. But as discussed in the first Report, the only court to cite Wilkes has declined to follow it. See Oertwich v. Traditional Vill. of Togiak, 413 F. Supp. 3d 963, 968 (D. Alaska 2019). The court agrees with the magistrate judge that “Wilkes, an Alabama Supreme Court decision that has never been cited by any circuit court, is not enough for this court to override both Fifth Circuit case law dismissing damages claims based on tribal sovereign immunity or the case law from other circuits upholding sovereign immunity for claims sounding in tort.” (Doc. #25, at 6). Thus, this claim must be dismissed.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Landreth v. United States [Ownership of Lake Quinault]

Here:

Landreth Opening Brief

Quinault Answering Brief

US Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Tort Claim against Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Gaming Company

Here are the materials in Nguyen v. Cache Creek Resort Casino (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

24 Motion to Dismiss

25 Opposition

28 Reply

29 Motion for Sanctions

31 Magistrate Report

Fifth Circuit Decides Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Matter Involving Hoopa Valley Tribe

Here is the opinion in Mitchell v. Bailey.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Church Parishioners Cert Petition in Seminole Tribe Immunity Case

Here is the petition in Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida:

Eglise Baptiste v Seminole Cert Petition

Questions presented:

(1) Is a Native American tribe sovereignly immune from a civil suit for damages caused by the off-reservation violations by its police officers of the “place of religious worship” provisions of the Freedom of Access To Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2) (“the Access Act”)?
(2) Are the “place of religious worship” and civil remedies provisions of the Access Act, as applied to a congregational leadership dispute, unenforceable because those provisions violate the Establishment of Religion and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Seminole BIO