sovereign immunity

Oklahoma v. Hobia is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The petition is here.

Blue Lake Rancheria Prevails in Unemployment Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Lanier (E.D. Cal.):

82-1 Blue Lake Motion for Summary J

92 Opposition

94 Blue Lake Statement of Material Facts

94-1 Blue Lake Reply

98 DCT Order

Prior decisions in this matter are here and here.

Federal Court Dismisses Contract Breach Claim against Fort Sill Apache Industries

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Team Systems International LLC v. Haozous (W.D. Okla.):

19 Tribal Motion to Dismiss

21 TSI Response

26 Tribal Reply

31 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Lake Quinault Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the orders (no written opinion yet) in North Quinault Properties LLC v. Quinault Indian Nation (W.D. Wash.):

23 DCT Order Granting Tribal Motion to Dismss

24 DCT Order Granting State Motion to Dismiss

Motions here.

Federal Court Dismisses Employment Suit against San Manuel

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Harris v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (C.D. Cal.):

17-1 Motion to Dismiss

19 Opposition

22 DCT Order

Pro Se Section 1983 Suit against Mille Lacs Ojibwe Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Goodman v. Waukey (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

7 Magistrate Report

11 DCT Order

SCOTUS Holds FTCA’s Time Bars are Subject to Equitable Tolling

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Kwai Fun Wong. An excerpt:

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA or Act) provides that a tort claim against the United States “shall be forever barred” unless it is presented to the “appropriate Federal agency within two years after such claim accrues” and then brought to federal court “within six months” after the agency acts on the claim. 28 U. S. C. §2401(b). In each of the two cases we resolve here, the claimant missed one of those deadlines, but requested equitable tolling on the ground that she had a good reason for filing late. The Government responded that §2401(b)’s time limits are not subject to tolling because they are jurisdictional restrictions. Today, we reject the Government’s argument and conclude that courts may toll both of the FTCA’s limitations periods.

Federal Court Dismisses Wrongful Death Action against Mississippi Choctaw

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Payne v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (S.D. Miss.):

16 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Pleadings here.

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Pro Se Employment Claims against Mohegan Sun Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Tremblay v. Mohegan Sun Casino:

Tremblay Brief

Mohegan Brief

CA2 Summary Order

Federal Court Confirms Labor Union Arbitration Award against Picayune Rancheria Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Unite Here Local 19 v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):

1 Petition

11-1 Unite Here Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

15 Chukchansi Opposition

16 Unite Here Reply

18 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Respondents maintain that the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) does not apply to them because the statute does not expressly abrogate tribal sovereignty. This Court, however, need not determine whether the statute abrogates sovereignty, as Respondents have waived their sovereign immunity and consented to be sued in federal court. See Okla.Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991) (“Suits against Indian tribes are thus barred by sovereign immunity absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.”) (emphasis added). The CBA-which, again, Respondents concede they agreed to—provides:
For the sole purpose of enabling a suit to compel arbitration or to confirm an arbitration award under this Agreement or the Employer’s Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance, the Employer agrees to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and consents to be sued in federal court, without exhausting tribal remedies.
Pet., Exh. A at 17 (emphasis added). There is no indication that Respondents entered into this unequivocal waiver involuntarily. See White v. Univ. of Cal., 765 F.3d 1010, 1025–26 (9th Cir.2014) (“A voluntary waiver by a tribe must be unequivocally expressed.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to Respondents’ suggestion, the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), does not compel a different result. In fact, that opinion reconfirmed that an Indian tribe may waive its sovereign immunity: “we have time and again treated the doctrine of tribal immunity as settled law and dismissed any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization or a waiver.” 134 S.Ct. 2030–31 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and parentheses omitted); see also id. at 2035 (“[I]f a State really wants to sue a tribe for gaming outside Indian lands, the State need only bargain for a waiver of immunity.”).