sovereign immunity

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

Matthew 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.

Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Michigan Gaming Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in the case captioned State of Michigan v. Payment (W.D. Mich.):

2015-03-20 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

2015-03-20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

71 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss

72 Sault Tribe Reply

The state’s amended complaint is here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Pala Disenrollments

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Allen v. Smith:

031.1 – Memorandum Disposition(83952089_1)

Excerpt:

This relief sought by the Appellants clearly operates against the Tribe. The
requested relief would prevent the Tribe from disenrolling the Appellants and
compel it to reinstate their membership and tribal benefits. Even the request for
compensatory and punitive damages (to be paid by the Appellees, not the Tribe)
would interfere with the Tribe’s public administration, because the monetary
damages are predicated on this court’s determination that the disenrollment of the Appellants was improper. Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ suit should be
construed as a suit against the Tribe itself.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Oklahoma Appellate Court Finds Apache Tribe Waived Immunity in Suit to Collect Arbitration Award

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Wells Fargo Band NA v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma:

Opinion

An excerpt:

This case arises from Wells Fargo Bank’s efforts to collect the balance of a $4,365,000 loan to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. The Tribe appeals various rulings of the district court in these consolidated appeals.1 Principally, the Tribe challenges the district court’s Judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the Bank, arguing it did not waive sovereign immunity or consent to be sued in Oklahoma district court. We find that there was a valid and express waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, that the Tribe’s agreement to arbitrate this dispute with the Bank is enforceable and that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in awarding the Bank the unpaid balance of its loan. Therefore, the district court’s Judgment confirming that portion of the arbitration award is affirmed as are the subsequent orders issued in aid of the Bank’s effort to collect its Judgment

Otoe-Missouria Tribal Chairman Brings Civil Rights Action against Connecticut Dept. of Banking

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Shotton v. Pitkin (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiff brings this action as a result of unlawful enforcement actions taken by Defendants against Plaintiff and Defendants’ entry of a state administrative order imposing a civil penalty of $700,000 against Plaintiff in his individual capacity and unlawfully restraining his conduct without due process of law and in violation of his individual right to immunity as a tribal official.

Our post on a related suit in Connecticut Superior Court action is here.

Wisconsin COA Affirms Immunity of Tribal Enterprise from Employment Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Harris v. Lake of the Torches Resort & Casino (Wis. App.):

2015.03.10 – Court of Appeals Opinion – Harris Appeal II

Briefs are here.

Diné CARE Prevails in NEPA Challenge to Navajo Mine Expansion

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in  Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (D. Colo.):

48 Diné CARE Opening Brief

53 OSMRE Response

54 BHP Navajo Response

55 Diné CARE Reply

79 DCT Order

News coverage here.

Posts on prior motion to dismiss and motion to intervene.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Held in Contempt over Gaming

Kate Fort

Order here.

Materials here.

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Affirms Tribal Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the opinions in First Bank and Trust v. Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes:

110909

Here are the briefs:

2-13-13 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Appeal Record

10-2-13 Special Appearance Joint Notice of Supplemental Authority

10-12-12 Joint Application to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

10-30-12 Special Appearance, Joint Brief-in-Chief of the Tribes and the Executive Branch

11-21-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Answer Brief and Brief-in-Chief on Counter-Appeal

12-7-12 Special Appearance, Joint Reply Brief and Answer Brief to Brief-in-Chief on Counter-Appeal

12-13-12 Joint Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal

12-19-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Response in Opposition to Joint Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal

12-19-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Waiver of Right to File Reply Brief

12-24-13 Special Appearance Notice of Supplemental Authority

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Quinault Lease under Rule 19, Sovereign Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Comenout v. Whitener (W.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

2 Motion for TRO

19 Motion to Dismiss

21 Response

24 Reply

25 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

The Nation is an indispensible party under Rule 19(b). As discussed above, a judgment in Comenout’s favor would prejudice the Nation’s contractual rights under the lease. Comenout also cannot be accorded complete relief in the Nation’s absence because any injunction would not be binding on the Nation. Further, the relief sought by Comenout cannot be shaped to lessen the potential prejudice to either Comenout or the Nation. Partial relief is also inadequate, because the Nation could still attempt to enforce its rights to use the property for commercial purposes as the lessee.