sovereign immunity – Page 72

The defendants in this case are conspirators in a usury scam. The defendants charged plaintiff Breanda Bynon interest at the rate of 182.02% A.P.R. on a $5,000 loan. Ms. Bynon paid defendants about $15,000, but defendants applied all of the money to usurious interest and then repossessed her vehicle claiming nonpayment. Ms. Bynon files this complaint for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law (“Act 6”), 41 P.S. § 201 et seq., and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),

Another:

Sovereign Lending Solutions, LLC (“Sovereign”), is a loan company wholly owned by the Lac Vieu Desert Bank of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian Tribe (”Tribe”), and incorporated under tribal law. Sovereign originated the loan to Ms. Bynon, but is not named as a party because it is protected from liability under the doctrine of tribal immunity.

Federal Court Remands Choctaw Contract Dispute with its Insurer in Removal Action

January 14, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. Occidental Fire & Insurance Co. (E.D. Okla.):

15 Occidental Motion to Dismiss

17 Choctaw Motion to Remand

18 Choctaw Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

22 Occidental Reply

26 Occidental Opposition to Motion to Remand

28 Choctaw Reply

31 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Occidental characterizes the issue in this case as whether it may assert or waive the Nation’s sovereign immunity in connection with insurance coverage on a claim made on the policy. It has not been suggested that Congress provided authority for an insurer such as Occidental to abrogate, waive, or otherwise assert the sovereign immunity of an Indian nation through appropriate legislation. Consequently, the source of the waiver must be the Nation itself. The sole unequivocal statement of the relationship between the Nation and the insurers is the policy itself. Indeed, Occidental recognizes this fact by relying upon certain provisions within the policy to argue the Nation has specifically granted it a waiver or control over the assertion of sovereign immunity. The interpretation of the terms of the policy as a contract is governed exclusively by state law.

AALS Indian Nations Section Panel on Michigan v. Bay Mills

January 3, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Alex Pearl, Ed Kneedler, Ryan Seelau, Thomas Zlamal, and Bill Wood

New Scholarship on Indian Country Payday Lenders and Arbitration Clauses

January 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “The Current State of Arbitration Clauses Within Article 8 Native American Tribal Contracts: An Examination of Binding Arbitration Contracts in Native American Payday Lending,” published in Arbitration Brief.

Tenth Circuit Issues Amended Opinion in Oklahoma v. Hobia

December 23, 2014December 23, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here. Like its earlier decision, today’s amended opinion concludes that the district court erroneously granted the State’s request for a preliminary injunction and held that the State’s complaint, which alleged class III gaming activities on non-Indian lands, failed to state a claim under IGRA.

The Tenth Circuit also reiterated that arbitration provisions in the state’s gaming compact effectively barred Oklahoma from suing tribal officials in federal court for purported violations of the compact. The court remanded the matter to the Northern District of Oklahoma with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and to dismiss Oklahoma’s complaint with prejudice.

Also, the court denied the petition for en banc review.

Panel materials are here.