Tenth Circuit Denies En Banc Petition in Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission LLC v. A 25 Foot Wide Easement

Here are the materials:

En Banc petition

Unopposed Motion for Atty Fees

Order Denying En Banc Petition

Order Granting Atty Fees

Other posts here.

Connecticut Court Holds Tribal Business is Immune from State Dept. of Banking Authority

Here are the materials in Great Plains Lending LLC v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Banking (Conn. Super.):

Appeal

Amended Complaint

Department’s Motion to Dismiss

Great Plains Objection to MTD

Superior Ct Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Great Plains Brief on the Merits

Department’s Brief on the Merits

Great Plains Reply

Superior Ct Order Vacating Commissioner Order

Cayuga Indian Nation Prevails in Tax Immunity Dispute with Seneca County

Here are the materials in the long-running Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County (W.D. N.Y.):

58 Cayuga Motion for Summary Judgment

60-5 Seneca County MSJ

62 Cayuga Reply

67 Seneca County Reply

76 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Employment Action against Oneida Housing

Here are the materials in Delebreau v. Danforth:

Opinion

Opening Brief

Response Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Counterclaim to Tribal Land Claim

Here are the materials in Oneida Indian Nation v. Phillips (N.D. N.Y.):

1-complaint4.pdf

17-answer-counterclaim.pdf

24-2-tribe-motion-to-dismiss-counterclaim.pdf

27-response.pdf

28-reply.pdf

30-dct-order1.pdf

Student Scholarship on the Allergan/Mohawk Case

Seth W. R. Brickey has published “Rent-A-Tribe: Using Tribal Immunity to Shield Patents from Administrative Review” in the Washington Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

 In 2017, Allergan Pharmaceuticals entered into an agreement with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT). Allergan agreed to assign several patents to SRMT and to pay an initial sum of $13.75 million and annual royalties of approximately $15 million. SRMT, in exchange, licensed the rights to use the patents back to Allergan and agreed not to  waive its tribal immunity in any administrative proceeding challenging the patents. Two outcomes were expected as a result of this Allergan-Mohawk agreement. First, Allergan would retain the rights to manufacture and market a highly profitable drug while insulating the underlying patents from an unforgiving administrative inter partes review (IPR). Second, SRMT would embark on a new business venture of collecting and relicensing patents from third parties, effectively “renting out” its sovereign immunity. The response from lawmakers, the judiciary, the executive branch, and the public at large was acrimonious. The agreement was branded in public forums as a “sham” and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the patents assigned to SRMT were not shielded by tribal immunity. This Comment argues the Allergan-Mohawk agreement is a legally effective means of avoiding IPR. Absent an express waiver of tribal immunity by Congress or the tribe itself, a tribe may not be subject to a private claim. This rule extends to IPR proceedings which closely parallel private suits. Therefore, contracts like the Allergan-Mohawk agreement effectively shield patents from IPR.

Federal Court Dismisses Workers’ Comp Claim against Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority

Here are the materials in Luiz v. Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority (N.D. Cal.):

1 Habeas Petition

8 Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

14 Reply

16 DCT Order

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Vendor Complaint against New York Oneida

Here is the unpublished opinion in Laake v. Turning Stone Casino.

Briefs:

laake-brief.pdf

tribe-brief.pdf

Federal Court Dismisses Tort Claim against Crow Health Care Center

Here are the materials in Wilhite v. Awe Kualawaache Care Center (D. Mont.):

29 Motion to Dismiss – sovereign immunity

30 Response

33 Reply

35 Motion to Dismiss – FTCA

38 Response

39 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Allows Fraud Claims against Tribal Employees to Proceed

Here are the materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

1-1 Complaint

6 Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

22 Reply

55 DCT Order