sovereign immunity – Page 61 – Turtle Talk

Nooksack Tribe Response to Tribal Court on Disbarment of Galanda Firm

March 14, 2016March 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Belmont v. Kelly Defendants’ Response to Motion for Judicial Notice

Update (3/18/16) — the tribe sent the attachments to this filing:

Decl of SG (1 of 3)

Decl of SG (2 of 3)

Decl of SG (3 of 3)

Connecticut SCT Affirms Tribal Immunity from Tort Suit; Rejects Ninth Circuit’s Maxwell Rule on Official Immunity

March 14, 2016March 14, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Lewis v. Clarke (Conn.):

Appellant Brief

Federal Court Holds Tribal Immunity Doesn’t Bar Subpoena

March 9, 2016March 9, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Steele (D. Nev.) (No. 15-663):

1 Motion to Quash

[8 Response sealed]

28 Magistrate Judge Report

30 Response to Objections

Federal Court Denies Reconsideration in N.M. Condemnation Action against Navajo; Certifies for Interlocutory Appeal

March 4, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. Approximately 15.49 Acres of Land in McKinley County (D. N.M.):

107 Motion for Reconsideration

111 Navajo Response

114 US Response

27 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Prior post here.

Suit over Jackpile Uranium Mine Cleanup Proceeds

March 3, 2016March 3, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):

32 US Motion to Dismiss

34 Laguna Construction Co Motion to Dismiss

36 Laguna Pueblo Motion to Dismiss

46 AR Response to US Motion

47 AR Response to Pueblo Motion

48 AR Response to LCC Motion

67 Pueblo Reply

71 DCT Order Granting US Motion

73 DCT Order Partially Granting Pueblo Motion

75 DCT Order Denying LCC Motion

Complaint here.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Action against Florida Seminole

February 24, 2016February 24, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Longo v. Seminole Indian Casino-Immokalee.

Briefs are here.

Enterprise Rancheria Prevails in IGRA Good Faith Negotiations Suit against California

February 19, 2016February 19, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):

14-1 Tribe Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

17-1 State Motion

19 State Legislature Amicus Brief

Federal Court Dismisses Title VII Action against Shakopee

February 15, 2016February 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Nawls v. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Gaming Enterprise – Mystic Lake Casino (D. Minn.):

17 Motion to Dismiss

Federal Court Decides Quiet Title Act Matter

February 10, 2016February 10, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights v. United States (D. N.M.):

22 US Motion to Dismiss

Federal Court Holds Tribe and Council are Subject to Discover in FTCA Suit against US

February 9, 2016February 8, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Matt v. United States (D. Mont.):

37 Motion to Quash

40-1 Opposition

45 DCT Order Granting Motion to Quash

An excerpt:

Matt seeks documents in the possession of the Fort Belknap Community Council. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) In order to satisfy Matt’s request, Council would be required to take affirmative action to produce tribal documents. (Doc. 37 at 3.) If the Court granted Matt’s request the judgment would “interfere with public administration” of the tribe and would “compel [the sovereign] to act.” Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1087-90. The recovery sought in this case would operate against the tribe. Matt should not be allowed to “circumvent tribal immunity” by addressing the Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mark Azure instead of to the tribe.

54 Motion to Compel

An excerpt:

The Council entered into an ISDEAA contract for the maintenance of the roads on Matt’s property. The Council and its tribal members should be deemed part of the BIA and subject to the FTCA. The Council and its tribal members should be subject to discovery related to the construction and maintenance of the roads covered by the ISDEAA contract.