Here are the materials in Everette v. Mitchum (D. Md.):
21 MobiLoans Motion to Dismiss
22-1 Riverbend Finance Motion to Dismiss
30-1 Mitchem Motion to Dismiss
41 Response to 3052 Mitchem Reply
Here are the materials in Everette v. Mitchum (D. Md.):
21 MobiLoans Motion to Dismiss
22-1 Riverbend Finance Motion to Dismiss
30-1 Mitchem Motion to Dismiss
41 Response to 3052 Mitchem Reply
Here are the relevant materials in MCI Communications Services Inc. v. Arizona Telephone Co. (N.D. Tex.):
37 Tribal Telecommunications Companies Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
In this action by two interexchange carriers (“IXCs”) seeking relief related to access fees that local exchange carriers (“LECs”) charge the IXCs to provide access services for wireless intraMTA calls, three defendants move to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) based on tribal immunity. For the reasons explained, the court grants the motion and also grants plaintiffs leave to replead.
Here are the materials in Coppe v. Sac & Fox Casino Healthcare Plan (D. Kan.):
An excerpt:
The statutory language of ERISA in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(32) demonstrates that Congress specifically intended for Indian tribes to maintain sovereign immunity for some employee benefit plans and to abrogate it for others. The language makes it clear that the exemption from the requirements of ERISA applies if all the employees in the plan established by an Indian tribe are “in the performance of essential governmental functions but not in the performance of commercial activities [whether or not an essential government function].”
Congress’s 2006 amendments to ERISA constitute an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity for tribal employee plans that perform commercialfunctions. Even before those amendments, circuit courts found ERISA applicable to Indian tribes whose employees performed non-governmental functions. Lumber Indus. Pension Fund v. Warm Springs Forest Prods. Indus., 939 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1991); Smart, 868 F.2d at 929.
Here are the materials in Star Tickets v. Chumash Resort Casino:
Here are the materials in Matt v. United States (D. Mont.):
37 Fort Belknap Motion to Quash
40-1 Opposition to Motio to Quash
45 DCT Order Granting Motion to Quash
The underlying complaint against the US is here:
Here is the unpublished opinion in ACF Leasing v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp. (PDF).
Briefs:
You must be logged in to post a comment.