sovereign immunity – Page 70

Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), require the dismissal of a State’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when

• the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials – not the tribe;

• the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and

• the state-tribal compact’s arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit?

Lower court materials here.

First Circuit Briefs in Luckerman v. Narragansett Tribe

March 27, 2015April 14, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Narrangansett Brief

Luckerman Brief

Narragansett Reply

Lower court materials here.

Quinault Moves to Dismiss Claims against Estate of Edward Comenout; Counterclaims Dismissed, Too

March 25, 2015March 25, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Quinault Indian Nation v. Comenout (W.D. Wash.):

59 Quinault Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

62 Opposition

67 Reply

72 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Materials in Carsten v. Nevada Inter-Tribal Council — FMLA Claims

March 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Carsten Opening Brief

ITC Answer Brief

Carsten Reply Brief

Oral argument video and audio.

Lower court materials here.

Suit for Injunctive Relief against Blackfeet Elected Officials over Utility MOA Dispute May Proceed

March 24, 2015May 1, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):

71 12b1 Motion to Dismiss

73 12b6 Motion to Dismiss

75 12b7 Motion to Dismiss

95 Response to 12b1 Motion

96 response to 12b6 Motion

97 Response to 12b7 Motion

115 Reply in Support of 12b7 Motion

123 DCT Order

140 Magistrate Report

144 Objection to Magistrate Report

148 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Defendants and Plaintiff have not objected to Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations on any other grounds. The Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts them in full. A plaitiff may seek only prospective, injunctive relief under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2007). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, and costs and attorney fees for counts 2–5. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Dismissal of counts 2–5 is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff seeks prospective, injunctive relief in count 1. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted in count 1.