sovereign immunity

Appeals Court Remands Suit Against Tunica-Biloxi’s Casino Employees

Sarah M Donnelly3 Comments

Order and Memorandum in re Zaunbrecher v. Succession of David, 2015-769 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/9/15) here.

An appeals court affirmed the Paragon Casino’s immunity from suit for the death of Blake Zaunbrecher, who was killed by a drunk driving patron in 2013.  However, the court reversed the decision to extend that immunity to its employees.   It found that the bartender and security guards could have a personal duty to the decedent that will make them personally liable.  It remanded the case to the 12th Judicial District Court to decide whether to stay all proceedings until resolution of a similar suit in Tribal court.

Tort Suit against Rocky Boys’ Business Committee Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Eagleman v. Rocky Boys’ Chippewa-Cree Tribal Business Committee (D. Mont.):

16 Motion to Dismiss

16-3 Eagleman Trial Court Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

16-4 Tribal Trial Court Order

16-5 Eagleman Tribal Appellate Brief

16-6 Tribal Appellate Court Opinion

33 Opposition

37 Reply

42 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Condemnation Action over Allotments in which Navajo Nation Has Property Interest

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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

32 Navajo Motion to Dismiss

39 Response

45 Reply

101 DCT Order — Condemnation

Hualapai Nation Dismissed from Defamation Suit in Aftermath of Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Steele/Cieslak v. Hualapai Tribe (D. Nev.):

96 Hualapai Motion to Dismiss Third Party Claims

109 Opposition

114 Reply

143 DCT Order

Related posts are here, here, and here.

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Supreme Court Decision in Tribal Chairman’s Removal Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Scott v. Kindle:

Scott

An excerpt:

The case at bar is fraught with such risk. There is no doubt that the action of the Tribal Council in removing President Scott from office is of historical significance. As such, it ought not be too readily set aside, especially when no practical remedy is available. As noted above, a new Tribal president, William Kindle, has recently been elected and taken office. Mr. Scott, even if he could prevail on his substantive arguments, cannot be placed back in office.3 Under these circumstances, it’s best to avoid any unnecessary constitutional conflict.

 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals Decision in Tribal Redistricting Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Woods v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council:

woods

An excerpt:

Despite the long and convoluted history of this case, much has been accomplished and both parties are to be commended for the positive results to date. As noted by Attorney Gunn in his letter of September 21, 2015, which is now part of the record in this case:

… the Tribal Council does not seek to undermine the rights and values enshrined in the Tribal Constitution or the Indian Civil Rights Act. To the contrary, the Tribal Council has honored and protected those rights by enacting redistricting legislation that ensures, and will continue to ensure, proportionate representation in the Tribal Council for all Tribal citizens.

There may still be differences of opinion in the details, but not on the overarching Tribal constitutional principle that mandates Tribal Council reapportionment. This, indeed, is worthy and noteworthy advance.

To be clear, while this case is over, the process of reapportionment and redistricting is not. Both sides realize that there is more to come, especially in regards to the Tribal Council’s commitment to taking a new tribal census in 2017 to guide redistricting for 2018 elections. See, e.g., Tribal Council Resolution 10-2015-CR. The implementation of this Tribal Council resolution may or may not lead to new litigation. If there is such litigation, the issue of Tribal Council sovereign immunity may be raised as a defense at that time. If it is, both the trial court and this Court shall rule upon it.

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Hildreth

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Hildreth Opening Brief

Poarch Band Brief

US Amicus Brief

Hildreth Reply

Lower court materials here.

Connecticut Court Recognizes Tribal Immunity, Remands to Allow Conn. Regulatory to Determine Whether Immunity Extends to Tribal Lender

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

Opinion

Briefs here.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Complaint against Chickasaw Housing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials from Sanders v. Anoatubby:

CA10 Unpublished Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Lower court materials here.

Supreme Court Petition Involving NAGPRA, Rule 19, and Tribal Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the petition in White v. Regents of the University of California:

White Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which governs repatriation of human remains to Native American tribes, contains an enforcement provision that states, “The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter and shall have the authority to issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter.” 25 U.S.C. § 3013. Over a strong dissent, a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that a party can prevent judicial review of controversial repatriation decisions by claiming a tribe is a “required party” under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the tribe invokes tribal immunity. The questions presented are:
1. Whether Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a district court dismiss any case in which a Native American tribe with immunity is deemed to be a “required party.”
2. Whether tribal immunity extends to cases where Rule 19 is the only basis for adding a tribe, no relief against the tribe is sought, and no other forum can issue a binding order on the dispute; and if so, whether Congress abrogated tribal immunity as a defense to claims arising under NAGPRA.
Lower court materials here.
UPDATE (1/4/16): Anthropologists Amicus Brief